Judgment :- 1. This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2004 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri in A.S.No.37 of 2003 confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2003 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli in O.S.No.62 of 2001. 2. The parties, for convenience sake are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the germane facts, in a few broad strokes, can be encapsulated thus: a] The unsuccessful plaintiff, being the appellant in this second appeal filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: -To pass a judgment and decree declaring - the title of the plaintiff in the suit property fully described here under in the schedule. - to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from anyway interfering with the plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for costs. (extracted as such) on the main ground that he purchased the property described in the schedule of the plaint measuring an extent of 23 cents vide Ex.A1 sale deed dated 16.07.2001 from one Palaniammal, who happened to be the owner as per Ex.A4 gift deed dated 21.11.1984 and Ex.A1 sale deed dated 16.07.2001. Both the deeds were executed by her father, viz. Chinnasamy. It so happened that subsequently, the other children of Chinnasamy filed the partition suit in O.S.No.138 of 1988 and the said Palaniammal, the vendor of the plaintiff also filed one other suit in O.S.No.49 of 1988 for declaration and injunction in respect of the same property. However, the suit filed by the said Palaniammal was dismissed. Whereas in the partition suit, a partition decree was passed; however declaring that the property measuring an extent of 23 cents covered by Ex.A3 belonged to Palaniammal, the vendor of the plaintiff, which cannot be partitioned. While the appeal was pending as against the partition decree, the plaintiff herein, purchased the entire extent of the suit property in the partition suit from Palaniammal as per Ex.A1. Thereafter, the said plaintiff filed the present suit for the entire extent of the property covered in the partition suit itself. b) Written statement was filed by the third defendant, which was adopted by the other defendants. c] The trial court framed the relevant issues. Thereafter, the said plaintiff filed the present suit for the entire extent of the property covered in the partition suit itself. b) Written statement was filed by the third defendant, which was adopted by the other defendants. c] The trial court framed the relevant issues. d] During trial, on the plaintiff's side, he examined himself as PW1 along with P.Ws.2 to 6 and marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A13. On the defendants' side, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. e) Ultimately, the trial court dismissed the suit. As against which, appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. f] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal suggesting substantial questions of law. 5. My learned predecessor adopted the same suggested substantial questions of law as under: “1. Whether the courts below erred in law in dismissing the entire suit even after holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 23 cents of land covered under Ex.A3 sale deed and Ex.B3 decree passed in the partition suit, merely because the plaintiff instituted the present suit in respect of 47 cents when the courts below are empowered to mould the relief and decree the suit with respect to 23 cents of land covered under Ex.A3 sale deed? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 24 cents of land covered under Ex.A4 gift deed and gifted to the plaintiff's vendor by her father, under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property when admittedly the plaintiff's vendor suppressed the pendency of the petition suit while selling the said property to the plaintiff and when the plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice? 3. Whether in law the plaintiff is entitled to the interest held by his vendor with respect to the land covered under Ex.A4 gift deed as provided under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act?” 6. 3. Whether in law the plaintiff is entitled to the interest held by his vendor with respect to the land covered under Ex.A4 gift deed as provided under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act?” 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant herein would pilot his argument, which (extracted as such) could pithily and precisely be set out thus: a) Even though, the plaintiff may not be entitled to the entire extent of the suit property as found specified in the earlier partition suit, yet as per the said partition decree, the plaintiff's vendor viz., Palaniammal was declared as the owner of 23 cents of land as found envisaged by metes and bounds in Ex.A3 herein and wherefore, the courts below could have decreed the suit only in respect of the property covered under Ex.A3 in favour of the plaintiff. b) Over and above that the trial court gave a finding also in this case that the plaintiff was in possession of the property covered under Ex.A3. As such, he would pray for moulding the relief and decreeing the suit based on Ex.A3. 7. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the appellant/plaintiff, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would pyramid her argument, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: a) The suit property as described in the plaint filed by the plaintiff in this matter would refer to a larger extent of 47 cents. No doubt, based on the settlement deed Ex.A4 as well as the sale deed Ex.A3 executed by Palaniammal's father in her favour, she executed the sale deed Ex.A1 but the schedule of property as found in Ex.A3 was not separately shown in the suit schedule. b) There is no categorical finding that Palaniammal was in exclusive possession of the property covered under Ex.A3 and that she handed over possession in favour of the plaintiff herein. c) In respect of the rest of the suit property is concerned, the plaintiff is having no right and as held in the partition suit, the plaintiff vendor-Palaniammal lost her claim based on Ex.A4. Accordingly, she would pray for the dismissal of the second appeal. Substantial question of law No.1: 8. c) In respect of the rest of the suit property is concerned, the plaintiff is having no right and as held in the partition suit, the plaintiff vendor-Palaniammal lost her claim based on Ex.A4. Accordingly, she would pray for the dismissal of the second appeal. Substantial question of law No.1: 8. Indubitably and indisputably, unarguably and unassailably, there was a partition suit, which emerged among the children of deceased Chinnasamy and in that the plaintiff's vendor Palaniammal was one of the parties as the daughter of deceased Chinnasamy. In that partition suit, it had been held that the said Chinnasamy was not justified in executing the settlement deed Ex.A4 in respect of an extent of 30 cents of the joint family property and accordingly, the settlement deed in favour of Palaniammal was declared as invalid. However, the same court in the said partition suit held that as per Ex.A3 dated 30.04.1980, the said Palaniammal was the owner of the 23 cents of land specified therein. As such, the property referred to in Ex.A3 in favour of Palaniammal was excluded from the partition by declaring that Palaniammal happened to be the owner of it. 9. No doubt, pendente lite, the sale deed Ex.A3 executed by the said Palaniammal to the plaintiff would be subject to the final outcome in the appeal. 10. Both sides in unison would state that the appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial court in that matter. As such, the plaintiff herein, who purchased the property pendente lite, the extent of 23 cents of land as found described in Ex.A3 could rightly be held to be valid. No doubt, in Ex.A1 the sale deed dated 16.07.2011, which was executed by Palaniammal in favour of the plaintiff, along with the property described in Ex.A3, the other item of property measuring 30 cents covered by the Settlement deed Ex.A4 was also included. Both the courts below got themselves perplexed because of such description in Ex.A1 the sale deed as well as in the schedule appended to the plaint. 11. In my considered opinion, the court has got the power to mould the relief suitably, once the rights of the parties are very much found established. The court can very well pass a decree by specifying the description of the property as found in Ex.A3. 12. 11. In my considered opinion, the court has got the power to mould the relief suitably, once the rights of the parties are very much found established. The court can very well pass a decree by specifying the description of the property as found in Ex.A3. 12. It is also crystal clear that in Ex.A1, the antecedent title deeds, are stated to be the said settlement deed Ex.A4 as well as the sale deed Ex.A3. In such a case, there could be no embargo for the court to pass a decree in favour of the appellant/plaintiff declaring that he is the absolute owner of the property measuring an extent of 23 cents as found described by metes and bounds in Ex.A3 the sale deed executed by Palaniammal in favour of the plaintiff. 13. Regarding the prayer for injunction is concerned, it has to be seen as to whether as on the date of the filing of the present plaint, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the said 23 cents of land as contemplated in Ex.A3. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would draw the attention of this court to para No.6 of the judgment of the trial court and argue that the lower court itself gave the finding that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the 23 cents of land as covered by Ex.A3. 15. The respondents herein, who met with their waterloo in the partition suit in respect of the prayer covered under Ex.A3, cannot simply raise their accusative finger based on hyper technicalities. Punctilious of court procedures and technicalities are hand maids of justice and certainly, if the technicalities are coming in the way of doing substantial justice, certainly that could be over looked. 16. There is no gain saying of the fact from the findings of the trial court that on execution of the sale deed by Palaniammal in favour of the plaintiff the 23 cents of land covered under Ex.A3, in all fairness the defendants should have kept themselves away from it and for that matter they should not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by the plaintiff, who is the owner and possessor of that portion of the land. 17. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and as against the defendants/respondents. 18. 17. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and as against the defendants/respondents. 18. Regarding Substantial question of law Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would advance his arguments thus: Even though the settlement deed Ex.A4 was declared to be invalid in the said partition suit, nonetheless as per Ex.A1 Palaniammal sold her rights in respect of virtually her undivided share also in the joint property, which happened to be the subject matter of partition in the said partition decree. 19. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would submit that the said Palaniammal did not sell her undivided share in the joint property in favour of the plaintiff; had such sale been effected, then it would always be open for the plaintiff to seek permission of the court, which is seized of the final decree proceedings so as to step into the shoes of Palaniammal and pray for allotment of Palaniammal's share in favour of the plaintiff subject to the extent covered by Ex.A4 and that too, if Palaniammal was entitled to that much share in the undivided property. 20. But, in this case, the said Palaniammal sold 30 cents of land based on Ex.A4, which was declared as null and void. As such, I could see considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, however, it is open for the plaintiff to take appropriate legal action and work out his remedy in the way known to law either by approaching the court, which is seized of the final decree proceedings or separately, as the case may be as per law. 21. As such, Substantial questions of law Nos. 2 and 3 do not at all arise for consideration in this second appeal. Accordingly, these two substantial questions of law are rejected. 22. Registry is direct to draft the decree as follows: Setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the suit O.S.No.62 of 2001 shall stand decreed partly. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property described in Ex.A3 and injunction is also granted in respect of that property as prayed for. In the decree, the description of property as found in Ex.A3 shall be specified as the subject matter of the decree. 23. In the result, this second appeal is partly allowed. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property described in Ex.A3 and injunction is also granted in respect of that property as prayed for. In the decree, the description of property as found in Ex.A3 shall be specified as the subject matter of the decree. 23. In the result, this second appeal is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.