Judgment :- 1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs, who after filing the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, having been non-suited by the trial Court as well as first appellate Court dismissing the suit, have filed the present second appeal. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the second appeal are given as under:- The plaintiffs/appellants herein claimed the suit property, having an extent of 3.20 acres in S.No.162 of Kagguchi Village, has been in their possession and enjoyment, as a single plot with specific boundaries. An extent of 1.45 acres out of the total extent of 3.20 acres, has been cultivated by the plaintiffs' father, Kosai Kambattan, and after his death in the year 1984, the plaintiffs being sons of Kosai Kambattan continued to be in possession of the same along with their respective purchased lands, by paying necessary land revenue to the Revenue Department. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that they have inherited an extent of 1.45 acres from their father and an extent of one acre as well as 0.75 acres in the said S.No.162 of Kagguchi Village were purchased under the registered sale deed, dated 07.05.1991 and 30.10.1995, respectively and in all, an extent of 3.20 acres are under their possession. Though the defendants are co-owners of the suit survey No.162, they have absolutely no right to claim any interest or ownership thereon, for the reason that the names of the defendants are found in the revenue records. In this connection, when a legal notice dated 31.08.2002, was received claiming that the defendants are the owners of the survey No.162, a reply notice, dated 18.09.2002, was given by the plaintiffs asserting their right and ownership over the suit property. Ignoring the reply notice, when there was an attempt with the peaceful possession of the suit property, they filed a suit with the aforesaid prayer. 3. The defendants, denying the aforesaid averments, submitted that they are the owners of 2 acres in the suit survey field, as they are in possession of the same. Ignoring the reply notice, when there was an attempt with the peaceful possession of the suit property, they filed a suit with the aforesaid prayer. 3. The defendants, denying the aforesaid averments, submitted that they are the owners of 2 acres in the suit survey field, as they are in possession of the same. Pleading so, they filed various supportive documents to establish their claims as follows:- Ex.B1-sale deed, dated 01.02.1928, by which Kosai son of Kunda Kambattan, had sold an extent of 2 acres in favour of one Bellie son of Pathan; Ex.B2-sale deed, dated 14.08.1934, by virture of which, the said Bellie had sold the said extent of 2 acres in the suit survey field to one Raniammal; Ex.B3-Photostat copy of a sale deed, dated 06.09.1984, by which, both the defendants herein had purchased an extent of 2 acres from the aforesaid Raniammal; Ex.B4-receipt dated 31.12.1984, issued by the Revenue Authorities in favour of the first defendant for the texes paid by her; Exs.B5 and B6 - Tax receipts issued by the Revenue Authorities for the taxes paid by the second defendant; Ex.B7 - a certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer of Kagguchi Village, certifying that the first defendant herein is in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre of land in the suit survey field. Ex.B8 - a certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, certifying that the second defendant is in possession and enjoyment of 1 acre of land in the suit survey field; Ex.B9 - a copy of a communication, dated 28.06.2003, sent by the Branch Manager, Agalar Village to the second defendant; Under these circumstances, the trial Court, after considering the case of either side, dismissed the suit. On appeal, when the matter was taken up before the first appellate Court, the learned first appellate Court has also affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, by dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. As against that, the present second appeal has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. 4. This Court, at the time of admission, framed the following substantial questions of law;- a) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in non-suiting the appellants by eschewing Exs.A1 to A15, Sale deeds, Chitta, Legal Notices, Tax Receipts, Certificates issued by the VAO and Encumbrance certificates, which would clearly establish the title and possession of appellants? 4. This Court, at the time of admission, framed the following substantial questions of law;- a) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in non-suiting the appellants by eschewing Exs.A1 to A15, Sale deeds, Chitta, Legal Notices, Tax Receipts, Certificates issued by the VAO and Encumbrance certificates, which would clearly establish the title and possession of appellants? b) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in dismissing the suit for permanent injunction by relying upon the decision in AIR 1990 Allahabad 177, which is applicable only in respect of a case where interim injunction is sought for? c) When it is incumbent upon the first appellate Court to frame points for determination as required under Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and decide the appeal in accordance with Section 96 of the code of Civil Procedure, whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court without adhering to the above provisions, is sustainable in law? 4 (a). The plaintiffs/appellants herein filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of 2012, seeking to receive the kist receipts annexed with the petition as additional evidence against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. While praying this Court to accept the additional evidence, he pleaded that the series of kist receipts from the year 1915 showing the appellants' possession, but the predecessors were inadvertently not able to mark or produce them before the trial Court. Since they are all 100 years old, if they are permitted to be taken on record, these documents would support the case of the appellants. On that basis, he sought for permission to receive the same as additional evidence at this belated stage. 4(b). This prayer, at the very outset, should be rejected for more than 2 reasons. Firstly, the plaintiffs/appellants herein had filed a suit only for bare injunction against the defendants on the basis of Exs.A1 to A15. When Exs.A1 and A2, through which, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 had purchased 1 acre as well as 75 cents, by sale deed, dated 07.05.1991 and 30.10.1995 respectively, their whole case is that the plaintiffs are entitled to have permanent injunction in respect of 3.20 acres of land in S.No.162 of Kagguchi Village. When Exs.A1 and A2, through which, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 had purchased 1 acre as well as 75 cents, by sale deed, dated 07.05.1991 and 30.10.1995 respectively, their whole case is that the plaintiffs are entitled to have permanent injunction in respect of 3.20 acres of land in S.No.162 of Kagguchi Village. But, the defendants, right from the date of filing their written statement, till the examinations of witnesses were complete before the trial Court, have established the fact that the plaintiffs' grandfather, Kosai, had sold 2 acres of lands in the same Survey No.162 to one Bellie,under Ex.B1. On the basis of subsequent purchase by the respondents 1 and 2, when the plaintiffs' title and ownership was challenged, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. 4(c). Secondly, Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code mandates the party seeking to adduce evidence to satisfy the appellate Court that such evidence, notwithstanding exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could be produced by him at the time when the decree of order under appeal was passed or made. But, in the present case, the appellants were not able to establish before the Court to its full satisfaction that after exercise of due diligence, the evidence sought to be produced today was not within his knowledge for production at the relevant time. Therefore, the documents sought to be produced now with a delay of about 9 years in a second appeal relating to a suit of the year 2003, cannot be entertained. Accordingly, M.P.No.1 of 2012 is rejected. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, while addressing the substantial questions of law, has submitted that the plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the suit property, because, as per Ex.A1, dated 07.05.1991, the second plaintiff had purchased an extent of 1 acre in the suit survey field. Similarly, the third plaintiff also, by virtue of another sale deed, dated 30.10.1995, had purchased an extent of 75 cents in the suit survey field. This has been supported by Ex.A3-chitta and Ex.A4-series of 6 receipts issued by the revenue authorities for the taxes paid by the plaintiffs and their predecessors. 6. Similarly, the third plaintiff also, by virtue of another sale deed, dated 30.10.1995, had purchased an extent of 75 cents in the suit survey field. This has been supported by Ex.A3-chitta and Ex.A4-series of 6 receipts issued by the revenue authorities for the taxes paid by the plaintiffs and their predecessors. 6. Learned counsel further argued that Ex.A9, a certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer of Kagguchi Village, certifying that the second plaintiff is enjoying 1 acre of land in the suit survey field and similarly, Ex.A10, another certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer of Kagguchi Village, certifying that the third plaintiff is enjoying an extent of 0.75 acre of land in the suit survey field, go to show that they are owners of the suit land and pleaded further that when these documents issued by the Village Administrative Officer were produced before the Courts below to support their case for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession, the Courts below have gravely omitted to appreciate the evidence in favour of the plaintiffs and as a result, a grave injustice has been done to them. On that basis, he has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 7. On that basis, he has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 7. The said submission finds no merit or substance, for the reason that when the defendants have produced two important sale deeds --- Ex.B1, sale deed, dated 01.02.1928, by which, Kosai son of Kunda Kambattan had sold an extent of 2 acres in favour of one Bellie son of Pathan; Ex.B2, sale deed, dated 14.08.1934, by which, the said Bellie had sold the said extent of 2 acres in the suit survey field to one Raniammal; ---- to establish their case that one Mr.Kosai, is grandfather of plaintiffs, who had sold 2 acres of land by Ex.B1, sale deed, dated 01.02.1928, to one Bellie and in turn, the said Bellie had sold the said 2 acres of land to one Raniammal, by Ex.B2, sale deed, dated 14.08.1934, and both these documents are of the years 1928 and 1934 respectively, both Courts below, after proper appreciation of all evidences, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' grandfather by alienating 2 acres in favour of one Raniammal, had a marketable title and thereafter, the plaintiffs have no right or title for an extent of 2 acres, for yet another reason that when Raniyammal sold the suit land of 2 acres in favour of the defendants 1 and 2, vide Ex.B3 in the year 1994, the defendants have become absolute owner of the suit property. Therefore, it is too late for the plaintiffs to contend that Exs.B1 and B2 are sham and nominal. Moreover, since the defendants have got over the suit survey field, unless the plaintiffs file a suit for declaration of title on the suit land, the suit for bare injunction is not legally sustainable in law. 8. In this context, it is worthwhile to refer the legal position as reinstated by the Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy ( (2008) 4 SCC 594 ), wherein it is held that where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the Court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the Court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction. Therefore, in the present case, since there has been a dispute over the title between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the plaintiffs cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction alone. 9. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court, finding that the reasonings given by the Courts below are absolutely in order, warranting no interference whatsoever, confirms the concurrent findings of the Courts below, by answering the substantial questions of law against the plaintiffs/appellants herein. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. M.P.No.2 of 2007 is closed. No Costs.