Judgment :- This second appeal is preferred against concurrent findings of Courts below decreeing plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction. Unsuccessful defendants are the appellants. For convenience, parties are to referred to in their original rank in the suit. 2. Suit property relates to Survey No.28/3C2 – 0.08.5H in Somalapurm Village, Vaniyambadi Taluk. Case of the plaintiff is that her father-in-law Thoppaiyan had purchased suit property under Ex.A1 sale deed dated 02.05.1950 and after the death of Thoppaian, her husband Chinnappan was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Plaintiffs husband Chinnappan died on 211. 1998. After his death, Service Connection No.136 installed in the suit property has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff and according to the plaintiff, she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that she has been paying kist and electricity charges. Alleging that the defendants have attempted to trespass into the suit property on 210. 2004, plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction. 3. Denying plaintiffs right and interest in the suit property, the defendants have filed written statement contending that the suit property belongs to defendants ancestrally. Defendants denied possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. First defendant claims that patta has been issued in his name and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. First defendant had also sold six cents in suit Survey No.28/3C2 – 0.08.5 hectares to the second defendant under Ex.B14 sale deed (27.08.1997). According to defendants, property sold by Ragavaiya Naidu to Thoppaiyan is entirely different from the suit property and the plaintiff has mistaken the said property for the suit property and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. 4. Based on the above pleadings, five issues were framed in the trial Court. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and her son Jayaseelan was examined as P.W.2 and one Settu was examined as P.W.3. On plaintiffs side, Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. Defendants 1 and 2 examined themselves as D.Ws.1 and 2 and Village Administrative Officer, Somalapuram Village was examined as D.W.3. Exs.B1 to B14 were marked on the defendants side. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and on the basis of Ex.A1 sale deed, trial Court held that the plaintiff is proved to be the owner of suit property. Defendants 1 and 2 examined themselves as D.Ws.1 and 2 and Village Administrative Officer, Somalapuram Village was examined as D.W.3. Exs.B1 to B14 were marked on the defendants side. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence and on the basis of Ex.A1 sale deed, trial Court held that the plaintiff is proved to be the owner of suit property. Based on Exs.A2 to A5, trial Court accepted plaintiffs case that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and held that defendants have no manner of right or interest to interfere with the suit property. Trial Court took the view that dismissal of suit in O.S.No.204 of 1997 will not be a res judicata for maintaining the suit by the plaintiff. Finding that plaintiffs possession of the suit property is to be protected, trial Court decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, defendants preferred appeal in A.S.No.103 of 2005 on the file of Sub Court, Tirupathur. Lower Appellate Court reiterated findings of trial Court that dismissal of earlier suit in O.S.No.204 of 1997 filed by the plaintiffs husband will not be a res judicata for maintaining the subsequent suit. Referring to certain answers elicited from D.Ws.1 and 2 during their cross examination, lower appellate Court held that interest of plaintiff in the suit property and her enjoyment has been admitted by the defendants themselves. Further, referring to certain answers of D.W.3 elicited during his cross examination, lower appellate Court held that the evidence of D.W.3 would strengthen plaintiffs case. Confirming findings of trial Court, lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants. 7. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings of Courts below, defendants have preferred this Second Appeal. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:-"1. Was not the lower appellate Court in error in shifting the onus of proof of the ownership of the suit schedule property on the part of the appellants herein? 2. Was not the lower appellate Court in error in dismissing the contention of this appellant that he is the owner of the suit schedule property even by continuous possession? 3. Was not both the Courts below in error in holding that the suit was not barred by res judicata?" 8. 2. Was not the lower appellate Court in error in dismissing the contention of this appellant that he is the owner of the suit schedule property even by continuous possession? 3. Was not both the Courts below in error in holding that the suit was not barred by res judicata?" 8. Heard Mr.K.Nagarajan, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants and Mr.S.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ex.B11 Patta was issued to the first defendant even in 1996 and the Courts below have not appreciated Ex.B11 in proper perspective. It was further contended that the total extent in Survey No.28/3 is 1.66 acres, out of which plaintiffs predecessors-in-title purchased only 91 cents under Ex.A1 sale deed (02.05.1950) and while so, Courts below erred in finding that Thoppaiyan, father-in-law of the plaintiff, purchased the suit property under Ex.A1. It was further argued that Courts below failed to consider revenue records standing in the name of the appellants and Courts below committed serious error in ignoring overwhelming documentary evidence Exs.B2 to B9, B11 and B13. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the evidence of D.W.3 in his chief examination would amply strengthen the defence plea and the Courts below erred in brushing aside the clinching evidence of D.W.3-Village Administrative Officer. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that suit being for permanent injunction, title need not be proved. It was further argued that defendants had not produced any document of title. It was further contended that after the death of Chinnappan, plaintiff became entitled to the suit property and effect of name transfer of service connection was admitted by D.Ws.1 to 3. Learned counsel would further submit that from oral and documentary evidence and from the admissions of D.Ws.1 to 3, Courts below rightly upheld plaintiffs right and possession. The main plank of argument of respondent/plaintiff is that the defendants have not adduced any evidence to show as to how D1 came to be in possession of the suit property. Contending that no substantial question of law is formulated, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted that there is no reason warranting interference in the concurrent findings of Courts below. 11. There is no dispute that the total extent of Survey No.28/3 is 1.66 acres. The suit property is Survey No.28/3C2 – 0.08.5 hectares. Contending that no substantial question of law is formulated, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted that there is no reason warranting interference in the concurrent findings of Courts below. 11. There is no dispute that the total extent of Survey No.28/3 is 1.66 acres. The suit property is Survey No.28/3C2 – 0.08.5 hectares. Plaintiff claims right to the suit property under Ex.A1 sale deed (02.05.1950), under which plaintiffs father-in-law Thoppaiyan had purchased 91 cents from Ragavaiya Naidu within specific boundaries. 12. Plaintiff, who claims permanent injunction, should prove that he/she has a good case for grant of injunction. In a suit for permanent injunction, the Court has to see, who is in possession of the suit property. Only if the Court finds that the plaintiff is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property, Court could grant permanent injunction. When the documents show that the plaintiff is not in possession, the Court could decline to exercise its discretion in granting injunction. Even in a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter when defendants have denied the title and possession, it would be necessary for the Court to adjudicate upon the question of title or possession. Where there is a denial of title, the Court has to ascertain as to who is the rightful owner. Even when the relief is one of permanent injunction simpliciter, invariably the question of possession will have to be taken into account. 13. As pointed out earlier, under Ex.A1 sale deed, plaintiffs father-in-law Thoppaiyan had purchased 91 cents within specific boundaries. Absolutely, there is nothing to show that the property purchased under Ex.A1 has been sub-divided as Survey No.28/3C2. Ex.A2 is Small Farmers Identity Card issued to Chinnappan, in which suit Survey No.28/3C2 has been shown to be in possession of the plaintiffs husband Chinnappan. Exs.A3 is the Electricity Consumption Card for the Service Connection No.136 for the Well stated to be in the suit property. Exs.A4 and A5 are the bills for payment of electricity charges. Even though in Ex.A2 Small Farmers Identity Card plaintiffs husband Chinnappan has been shown to be in possession of suit Survey No.28/3C2, the same cannot said to be conclusive evidence to hold that plaintiff and her predecessors-in-title had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit Survey No.28/3C2. 14. Revenue record is the base evidence for proving possession. Even though in Ex.A2 Small Farmers Identity Card plaintiffs husband Chinnappan has been shown to be in possession of suit Survey No.28/3C2, the same cannot said to be conclusive evidence to hold that plaintiff and her predecessors-in-title had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit Survey No.28/3C2. 14. Revenue record is the base evidence for proving possession. Plaintiff has not produced any chitta or adangal to prove her possession in the suit property, nor she has produced any kist receipt paid for the suit property. Courts below did not keep in view that the total extent in Survey No.28/3 is 1.66 acres and that plaintiffs father-in-law Thoppaiyan had purchased only 91 cents. Courts below also did not keep in view that the plaintiff has not produced any document of authentication to prove her possession. 15. As pointed out earlier, defendants have raised a specific plea in the written statement that the suit property belongs to first defendant ancestrally. Defendants have produced Ex.B11 patta issued in the name of first defendant in 1996. When the defendants have raised specific defence plea denying plaintiffs title to the suit property, plaintiff ought to have taken steps for amending the suit seeking for declaration of title. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that plaintiffs husband Chinnappan has already filed O.S.No.204 of 1997 against defendants for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property on the file of Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrates Court, Ambur. The said suit was dismissed for default on 211. 2000. Of course, dismissal of earlier suit for default cannot be a res judicata, but, non pursuing the earlier suit and allowing the same for dismissal is a strong mitigating circumstance against plaintiffs case. 16. First defendant claims right in the suit property that it belongs to him ancestrally. His defence plea is strengthened by Ex.B1-patta issued in the year 1996. Defendants have also produced Exs.B2 to B9 and B13 kist receipts paid for the suit property (Patta No.70). In fact, under Ex.B14 sale deed (27.08.1997), first defendant sold an extent of 2607 sq.ft. in the suit property to the second defendant. Assertion of title in the suit property by the first defendant amply strengthens defendants case. In fact, in or about the time of Ex.B14 sale deed (27.08.1997), plaintiffs husband Chinnappan filed O.S.No.204 of 1997 on 04.09.1997. In fact, under Ex.B14 sale deed (27.08.1997), first defendant sold an extent of 2607 sq.ft. in the suit property to the second defendant. Assertion of title in the suit property by the first defendant amply strengthens defendants case. In fact, in or about the time of Ex.B14 sale deed (27.08.1997), plaintiffs husband Chinnappan filed O.S.No.204 of 1997 on 04.09.1997. Explanation offered by the plaintiff for non-pursuing the earlier suit is not convincing. Allowing the earlier suit to be dismissed for default strengthens defence plea. .17. Village Administrative Officer of Somalapuram was examined as D.W.3 with reference to Chitta, Adangal and A Register. D.W.3 has stated that Chitta and Adangal for suit Survey No.28/3C2 stand in the name of first defendant from fasli 1403 to fasli 1415 (1994 to 2006). D.W.3 has also deposed that A Register stands in the name of first defendant from 31.03.1984. D.W.3 has also stated that compensation paid by the Government to compensate salty water was also paid only to the first defendant. Revenue records standing in the name of first defendant and evidence of D.W.3 with reference to the revenue records clearly establish that the first defendant is in possession of the suit property. While so, Courts below erred in brushing aside the evidence of D.W.3. 18. During his cross examination, D.W.3 was confronted with certain documents by the plaintiffs side. D.W.3 has admitted that Service Connection No.136 in the suit property stood in the name of Chinnappan and after his death, the same was transferred in the name of plaintiff. In his cross examination, D.W.3 has also admitted having issued certificates in favour of the plaintiff. The answers elicited from D.W.3 during his cross examination was prevaricating. Having regard to the revenue records standing in the name of the plaintiff, in my considered opinion, no weight age could be attached to the answers elicited from D.W.3 during his cross examination. In my considered opinion, Courts below committed serious error in ignoring the clinching evidence of D.W.3 in his chief examination and the revenue records standing in the name of the first defendant. 19. Courts below proceeded under the misconception that the first defendant has not produced any document to show as to how he is entitled to the suit property and how he came to be in possession of the suit property. The approach of the trial court was erroneous. 19. Courts below proceeded under the misconception that the first defendant has not produced any document to show as to how he is entitled to the suit property and how he came to be in possession of the suit property. The approach of the trial court was erroneous. It is the definite case of the first defendant that the suit property belongs to him ancestrally. While so, first defendant cannot be expected to produce documents other than patta and revenue records. In fact, plaintiffs document Ex.A1 sale deed strengthens the defendants case. In the recitals in Ex.A1 in favour of Thoppaiyan by Raghavaiya Naidu, Raghavaiya Naidu has stated that patta in Survey No.28/3 stands in his name and in the name of Chinnavarikkam Chinnasamy Naidu as seen from "(Tamil)". Chinnavarikkam Chinnasamy is none than the father of the first defendant. The Courts below erred in ignoring the recitals in Ex.A1 and erred in faulting the first defendant for not producing any document of title. 20. During their cross examination, D.Ws.1 and 2 had admitted that Service Connection No.136 stood in the name of Chinnappan, which was transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Courts below decreed plaintiffs suit on the basis of service connection stands in the name of plaintiff and that the plaintiff has been paying electricity charges. Absolutely, there is nothing to show that Service Connection No.136 has been installed in the suit property. In any event, service connection standing in the name of the plaintiff alone would not in any way establish the title or possession of the plaintiff in the entire extent of the suit property 0.08.5 hectares. Courts below detached certain answers from the cross examination of D.Ws.1 and 2 and held that the case of the plaintiff is proved by the admission of the defendants. Having come to the Court seeking for permanent injunction, it is for the plaintiff to establish her own case by adducing cogent evidence. Plaintiff cannot take advantage of certain answers elicited from D.Ws.1 and 2 during their cross examination. Courts below erred in decreeing plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction merely on the basis of Ex.A2 Identity Card for Small Farmers and Exs.A3 to A5 Electricity Consumption Card and Bills for payment of electricity charges. .21. Plaintiff cannot take advantage of certain answers elicited from D.Ws.1 and 2 during their cross examination. Courts below erred in decreeing plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction merely on the basis of Ex.A2 Identity Card for Small Farmers and Exs.A3 to A5 Electricity Consumption Card and Bills for payment of electricity charges. .21. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., concurrent findings of lower appellate Court and trial Court cannot be interfered with by the High Court in a routine manner by substituting the subjective satisfaction in the place of lower courts. Where it is found that the conclusion drawn by the Courts below is erroneous and the Courts below ignored material evidence, exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., High Court could certainly interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. 22. Considering the principles relating to Section 100 C.P.C., Supreme Court has summarised the position in 2006 (4) CTC 79 (Hero Vinoth (minor) v. Seshammal), "24. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC., relevant for this case may be summarised thus: .(i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents of a document is a question of fact. But the legal effect of the terms of a document is a question of law. Construction of a document involving the application of any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong application of a principle of law in construing a document, it gives rise to a question of law. .(ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere question of law. A question of law having a material bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit) will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions of law or settled legal principle emerging from binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal issue. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the Court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. A substantial question of law will also arise in a contrary situation, where the legal position is clear, either on account of express provisions of law or binding precedents, but the Court below has decided the matter, either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle. In the second type of cases, the substantial question of law arises not because the law is still debatable, but because the decision rendered on a material question, violates the settled position of law. (iii) The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the Courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the Courts have wrongly cast the burden proof. When we refer to decision based on no evidence, it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." Applying the ratio of the abovesaid decision, in the case on hand, the conclusion of the trial Court and lower appellate Court was erroneous as they proceeded on the basis that the first defendant has not produced his document of title. Courts below erred in ignoring Ex.B2 to B9, B11, B13 and B14. Even though when evidence is lacking on the plaintiffs side to prove her possession, Courts below drew wrong inference of possession from Exs.A2 to A4. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are perverse and cannot be sustained. 23. In the result, the concurrent findings of Courts below are set aside and the Second Appeal is allowed. Suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.311 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ambur is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.