Judgment :- 1. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the defendants 2 to 4 against the concurrent findings of both the courts below. 2. (a) The plaintiffs 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.462/1999 for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession in respect of the suit property having an extent of 150/35 sq.ft in Survey No.90/1 (new Survey No.273) on the ground that plaintiffs have derived their title from a sale deed dated 23.2.1961 that has taken place between Viruthambal and Deivanai, plaintiffs' mother. (b) Opposing the said prayer the defendants filed their written statement giving a different description of the property showing a different extent of the property in question by giving 150/70 sq.ft. coming under Survey No.90/1 i.e., equivalent to New Survey No.273. (c) Though they claimed that they are the owners of the land in question admeasuring 150/70 sq.ft. in the abovementioned Survey Number on the basis of a partition deed dated 9.1.1918 executed between Arunachalam, son of Muthusamy and Arunachalam, son of Kuppusamy along with another document-a will dated 16.12.1982-Ex.B7, written by Uthandi Mudaliar, father of the defendants, the trial Court having seen that the will produced by the defendants has indicated that the suit property which they claimed was having only 80/50 sq.ft of land, accepting the case of the plaintiffs/respondents that they have derived their title from a sale deed dated 23.2.1961 executed by Viruthambal to Deivanai, who is the mother of the plaintiffs, decreed the suit as prayed for granting a bare injunction. (d) Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, when appeal was preferred by the defendants 2 to 4, the plea of res-judicata taken by the defendants/appellants before the first appellate Court was also properly considered by answering the arguments raised by the defendants/appellants herein stating that the description of the property sold in the earlier suit filed in O.S.No.330/89 against the plaintiffs' mother for injunction was only in respect of property having an extent of 80/50 sq.ft. with different boundaries and accordingly, it further held that the question of principle of res-judicata would not arise. When the first appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal, the unsuccessful defendants have come before this Court by preferring the present Second Appeal. 3. with different boundaries and accordingly, it further held that the question of principle of res-judicata would not arise. When the first appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal, the unsuccessful defendants have come before this Court by preferring the present Second Appeal. 3. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal this Court has framed the following substantial question of law: "In the facts and circumstances of case, whether the Courts below are right in coming to the conclusion that the relief sought for by the plaintiffs is not hit by the principle of resjudicata by erroneously giving a finding that the suit property in the earlier suit in O.S.No.330 of 1989 is totally different from that of the present suit property." 4. (i) In fact, the substantial question of law as framed above is only relating to the mixed question of law and facts. Whether the suit property of both the plaintiffs and the defendants covered in the civil suit laid before the trial court was one and the same or different from the property covered in the earlier suit in O.S.No.330/1989. This question has not only been answered by the trial court in its judgment, but the first appellate Court also by clearly giving the description of the property had again answered against the defendants/appellants herein. When the plaintiffs/respondents have gone before the trial Court by mentioning the description of the property and also the extent stating that they asked for bare injunction in respect of land covered in Survey No.90/1 admeasuring 150/35 sq.ft., the defendants filed their written statement giving altogether a different extent of land admeasuring 150/70 sq.ft., in Survey No.90/1 that was also based on earlier will dated 16.12.1982 executed by one Uthandi Mudaliar, father of the defendants. Even in the said will also, the property covered in Survey No.90/1 was mentioned as 80/50 sq.ft. Therefore, the written statement filed by the defendants/appellants before the trial Court did not deal with the description of the property mentioned in the original will Ex.B7 dated 16.12.82. Besides, the earlier suit also carried a different description of the property having an extent of land, namely, 80/50 sq.ft. Therefore, the written statement filed by the defendants/appellants before the trial Court did not deal with the description of the property mentioned in the original will Ex.B7 dated 16.12.82. Besides, the earlier suit also carried a different description of the property having an extent of land, namely, 80/50 sq.ft. In that view of the matter, the concurrent findings of both the Courts below holding that the suit laid down by the plaintiffs/respondents herein are not hit by the principles of res-judicata, cannot be found fault with and the substantial question of law is to be accordingly answered against the appellants. (ii) Another serious contention placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that when the plaintiffs/respondents approached the trial Court for the relief of bare injunction, the learned trial Court has unnecessarily gone into the question of title relating to the property covered in S.No.90/1. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in ANATHULA SUDHAKAR V. P.BUCHI REDDY ( AIR 2008 SC 2033 ) for a proposition 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. The said judgment also clearly holds that where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issues relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the Court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. If the above observation is applied in the present case, it has to be seen that though the plaintiffs have approached the trial Court seeking the relief of bare injunction, they have invited the trial Court to address the question of title also by stating that unless the Court decides who is the real owner having proper title over the property in question, the relief of bare injunction cannot be considered. Under these background it is also relevant to extract sub-paragraphs a,b,c and d of para 17 of the judgment in AIR 2008 SC 2033 mentioned above and the same are given as follows: (a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. (b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession. (c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title [either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar(supra)]. 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. (d) Where there are necessarypleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case." A reading of sub-paras (c) and (d) above go to show that where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title on which the parties lead evidence, the Court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. In view of the above principle, the concurrent findings of the Courts below deciding the case of the parties by touching on the title and ownership of the property in question for the purpose of granting the necessary relief of bare injunction cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellants. 5. Accordingly, finding no merits in the Second Appeal, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below are hereby affirmed. C.M.P.No.3190/2006 is also dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.