Judgment :- 1. The present Second Appeal was brought by the plaintiff against whom the learned first appellate Court dismissed the suit by reversing the judgment and decree for permanent injunction granted by the trial court. 2. The plaintiff/appellant-Masilamani filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and representatives from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property with another prayer for payment of costs of the suit from the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property for several decades by putting up a thatched hut in a portion of the suit property. It was the plaintiff's further case that the Government has also recognised his possession and enjoyment of the suit property by granting patta in his name in Natham Survey Scheme. On that basis, the plaintiff has also put up a cattle shed in a portion of the suit property and house tax was also assessed in the name of the plaintiff and to prove his possession the plaintiff also filed house tax receipts. It was his further case that the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by him has been in open and to the knowledge of the entire villagers including the defendant and thus, he has acquired the prescriptive title to the suit property by his long, continuous and uninterrupted possession for more than the statutory period. Whileso, when the defendant along with his henchmen made an attempt to trespass into the suit property on 27.4.1997, the same was averted by the plaintiff with great difficulty. Under these circumstances, apprehending trespass, the plaintiff was compelled to file a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and representatives from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for payment of cost of the suit. 3. The said prayer was opposed by the defendant by filing a written statement wherein the defendant/respondent herein has specifically taken a ground that the plaintiff/appellant has suppressed the real facts and filed a vague suit since the suit property is the absolute and exclusive property of Mr.Gopal, father of the defendant. 3. The said prayer was opposed by the defendant by filing a written statement wherein the defendant/respondent herein has specifically taken a ground that the plaintiff/appellant has suppressed the real facts and filed a vague suit since the suit property is the absolute and exclusive property of Mr.Gopal, father of the defendant. It was further averred in the written statement that when the defendant's father Gopal had already filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession in O.S.No.391/1992 before this court against the plaintiff's father the said suit was decreed. Subsequently, in pursuance of the said decree for declaration and possession the defendant's father also took possession of the suit property on 4.8.1994 through court. Thereafter, the defendant's father-Gopal died leaving the defendant and Selvaraj as legal heirs. Suppressing all these facts, the plaintiff should not have filed a suit for mere injunction. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was working as a Village Paniyal and by using his influence he somehow managed to get patta from Natham Tahsildar in spite of defendant's objection. Only armed with patta the plaintiff again trespassed into the suit property in January 1998. Therefore, the plaintiff who is working as Village Paniyal has proved himself that he is not a law abiding citizen as he has disobeyed the earlier decree passed in O.S.No.391/1992 granting declaration against him and the same became final. On that basis, it was further contended by the defendant before the trial Court in the written statement that the suit was hit by principle of res-judicata. 4. In this background the matter was taken up for trial. The trial court by giving a finding that the defendant has failed to produce any document to prove that the suit property belongs to the defendant, on the basis of patta-Ex.A.1 dated 21.8.1994 and Exs.A2 to A5-house tax Receipts, decreed the suit, granting injunction against the true owner. 5. Aggrieved by the grant of injunction against the defendant, the first appeal was filed by the defendant complaining that the trial court has ignored erroneously the principle of res-judicata, though it was rightly brought to the notice of the trial court that the suit was hit by the principle of res-judicatain view of the earlier judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.391/92 dated 4.8.1994. The learned first appellate court, by looking into the parties in the earlier suit O.S.No.391/92 and finding that the defendant's father had already obtained a decree and judgment for declaration and recovery of possession against the plaintiff in respect of the same suit property, by giving a specific and explicit finding that the trial court has completely gone wrong in not looking into the principle of res-judicata as the earlier judgment and decree for declaration of title was obtained by the defendant's father Gopal against the plaintiff in respect of the same suit property, set aside the judgment of the trial court holding that the suit for bare injunction was not maintainable when there was already a judgment and decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession in favour of the defendant's father. 6. Aggrieved by the reversing judgment of the learned first appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein. 7. This Court at the time of entertaining the Second Appeal has framed the following substantial questions of law. "(i) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in dismissing the suit when admittedly the appellant is in possession of the suit property? (ii) Whether the lower appellate Court without rendering a finding that the delivery in the earlier suit is physical delivery or symbolic delivery is correct in dismissing the suit ? (iii)When Exhibits A1 to A6 prove that the appellant is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property, is he not entitled to decree of injunction for protecting the suit property ?" 8. While addressing the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that when the defendant himself has admitted in the written statement before the trial court that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, the trial court by taking into account the admission made by the defendant in respect of the plaintiff's possession supported by the patta-Ex.A.1 dated 21.8.94, followed by other house tax receipts-Exs.A2 to A5, rightly granted the decree for permanent injunction against the defendant. But, the learned first appellate Court wrongly reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 9. But, the learned first appellate Court wrongly reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 9. But, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant was not able to sustain the judgment and decree passed by the trial court by bringing to the notice of this Court as to how the plaintiff/appellant is able to maintain the second suit when he has already suffered a judgment and decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the same suit property in O.S.No.391/1992. This aspect was properly gone into by the learned first appellate Court. When the suit in O.S.No.391/92 was filed by the defendant's father Gopal against the very same plaintiff, nowhere, there was any denial on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, after careful perusal of Ex.B1-certified copy of the Case Register and Ex.B2-certified copy of the Delivery Register in E.P.No.39/94 in O.S.No.391/92 which showed that when the defendant's father had successfully filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property as against the plaintiff/appellant and he has also taken possession of the suit property, vide Exs.B1 and B2 dated 4.8.1994, the learned Appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that the possession of the suit property was already delivered through Court of law to the defendant's father Mr.Gopal. Under these circumstances, the contention made by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant that it was only a paper delivery based on exparte decree against the plaintiff was also rightly held against the plaintiff by giving a proper reason that when possession was given to the defendant's father on 4.8.1994 through Court, the plaintiff who is working as Thalayari in the Village was managed to get patta from Natham Tahsildar only on 21.8.1994, two weeks from the date of taking possession of the suit property and only on the basis of the patta-Ex.A.1 dated 21.8.1994 the plaintiff has wrongly trespassed into the suit property. Since these vital aspects have been completely lost sight of by the trial Court, the reasoning and conclusion reached by the learned first appellate Court, in my considered opinion, cannot be found fault with. 10. It is trite, no court shall grant an order of bare injunction against the true owner. In the present case, admittedly, the defendant's father Gopal has already obtained a judgment and decree, declaring that the suit property belonged to him. 10. It is trite, no court shall grant an order of bare injunction against the true owner. In the present case, admittedly, the defendant's father Gopal has already obtained a judgment and decree, declaring that the suit property belonged to him. Having allowed the said decree to stand as final, the plaintiff, a Village Talayari by profession, deceitfully filed the suit suppressing such earlier judgment and decree standing against him. Therefore, when the conduct of the plaintiff/appellant has been such as to disentitle himself of the assistance of the court, this Court declines to go into other questions of law. 11. Before parting with, it is to be mentioned herein that when the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.391/92 stands legally valid even as on today, the plaintiff/appellant should not have filed a suit for bare injunction. 12. Accordingly, by answering the substantial questions of law against the plaintiff/appellant, the Second Appeal No.407/2006 fails and the same is dismissed with costs throughout. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.5319/2006 is dismissed.