JUDGMENT 1. The arguments advanced by Mr. N. Manokaran, learned Counsel for the Appellants were heard. The grounds of Second Appeal and the documents in the form of typed set of papers were also perused. 2. The present Second Appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below granting the relief of injunction in favour of the Respondents/Plaintiffs. The Respondent/Plaintiffs had been assigned HSD Patta in respect of house sites having an extent of 2 cents (875 sq.ft) each, in Gramanatham No.513/15 of Illupili Village. Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. The assignment orders along with the filed maps in the names of the Respondents/Plaintiffs have been produced as Exs. A1 to A2. The said assignments came to be made on 16.9.2005. A condition was also imposed in the assignment orders that the assignees should put up construction within 6 months/12 months, if no construction had been put up earlier. Contending that after the assignment, the suit properties were in possession and enjoyment of the Respondents/Plaintiffs; that when they made arrangements for putting up construction, Appellants/Defendants tried to prevent the same and that the which necessitated the Respondents/Plaintiffs to approach the Trial Court by filing a Suit for injunction against the Appellant / Defendants not to prevent the Respondents/Plaintiffs putting up any construction in the suit properties, they had filed the Suit before the Trial Court. 3. The Appellants/Defendants resisted the Suit by disputing the claim of the Respondents/Plaintiffs that they had been issued assignment Pattas in respect of 4 cents of land described as the suit properties (2 cents each for each one of the Plaintiffs) in S.No. 513/15 and on the basis of their contention that for survey No. 513/15 corresponding old Survey Number was 22/3A1; that an extent of 5 cents of land within specified boundaries belonged to the Appellants/Defendants ancestrally and that they were in possession and enjoyment of the same even as on the date of filing of the Suit. It was also contended by the Appellants/Defendants before the Trial Court that the Respondents/Plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit properties. It was also contended by the Appellants/Defendants before the Trial Court that the Respondents/Plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit properties. The further contention of the Appellants/Defendants was that as the Respondents/Plaintiffs had failed to put up the construction within one year from the date of assignment, the assignment automatically stood cancelled and the Respondents/Plaintiffs had lost whatever title that could have been conferred on them by the Government by the issuance of assignment Patta. 4. The learned Trial Judge framed Issue No.1 as “whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction” and Issue No.2 as, “Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief?”. At the conclusion of trial, on an appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary adduced on both sides, came to the conclusion that the Respondents/Plaintiffs got 4 cents of land comprised in Suit S.No.513/5 and each one of the Respondents/Plaintiffs had been assigned two cents of land (equivalent to 875 sq.ft). under Exs. A1 & A2 and that the same had been shown as the suit properties. Holding that the suit properties remained vacant site and applying the principle “possession follows title”, the learned Trial Judge held that the Respondents/Plaintiffs were in “Possession of the suit properties”. Similarly, after a thorough analysis of the evidence adduced on the side of the Appellants/Plaintiffs, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that the Appellants/Plaintiffs, who claimed to be the owner of 5 cents of land comprised in Old S. No. 22/3A1, were not able to correlate the same with the suit Survey No. 513/15. The learned Trial Judge also held that, thought the Appellants/Defendants might have chosen to deny the assignment of the suit lands under Exs. A1 & A2 to the Respondents/Plaintiffs, during trial it was admitted by the Appellants/Plaintiffs that such Respondents/Plaintiffs, who were able to get the assignment Patta using their influence with the Revenue Authorities, did not get actual possession of the suit properties and the possession of the suit properties continued to remain with the Appellants/Defendants. The learned Trial Judge after referring to the various admissions arrived at a conclusion that, besides, their failure to correlate the old S.No. 22/3A1 to the Suit Survey Number, the Appellants/Defendants were also not in a position to substantiate their case that the suit properties were in their possession and enjoyment even after assignment. The learned Trial Judge after referring to the various admissions arrived at a conclusion that, besides, their failure to correlate the old S.No. 22/3A1 to the Suit Survey Number, the Appellants/Defendants were also not in a position to substantiate their case that the suit properties were in their possession and enjoyment even after assignment. The learned Trial Judge made a clear and categorical observation that the suit properties being a vacant house sites in the Gramanatham, the parties could not be expected to produce any document to prove their possession and that in such cases, the principle, “possession follows title” should be applied. It was also held that, the Appellants/Defendants had no document, to show their better title in respect of the suit properties as against Exs. A1 & A2 assignment Patta in the name of the Respondents/Plaintiffs and as such, the possession of the Respondents/Plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties should be recognized. Based on the said finding and also on the admission that the Plaintiffs were not allowed to put. Up any construction in the suit properties, the learned Trial Judge held that the Respondents Herein/ Plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of injunction as sought for. Accordingly, by its judgment and decree dated 17.6.2011, the Trial Court decreed the Suit and granted the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Respondents/Plaintiffs. 5. Aggrieved by and challenging the decree of the Trial Court, the Appellants Herein/Defendants preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.37 of 2011 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchangode. The learned First Appellate Judge also, after hearing, concurred with the findings of the Trial court, in all respects and dismissed the Appeal confirming the decree passed by the Trial court. The said decree of the First Appellate Court dated 28.2.2012 is sought to be challenged before this Court in the present Second Appeal. 6. The only point which is sought to be projected as a substantial question of law involved in the second Appeal is that when the title of the Plaintiffs is disputed by the Defendants. The Suit for bare injunction should have been rejected as not maintainable. In support of his contention, Mr. 6. The only point which is sought to be projected as a substantial question of law involved in the second Appeal is that when the title of the Plaintiffs is disputed by the Defendants. The Suit for bare injunction should have been rejected as not maintainable. In support of his contention, Mr. N. Manokaran, learned Counsel for the Appellants draw the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs., 2008 (6) CTC 237. This Court is at a loss to understand how the learned Counsel for the Appellants can seek the help of the said judgment, Honorable Supreme Court has held that a Suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. On the Other hand, the Honorable Supreme Court has classified the Suits for injunction into (1) simple Suits for injunction based on possession alone, (2) Suits for injunction based on title when titled is not disputed, and (3) Suits for injunction based on possession when title is disputed, and (4) other Suits for injunction. 7. While dealing with various types of cases for injunction, the Honorable Supreme Court has held that in cases for injunction based on possession alone question of title need not be gone into. In cases of injunction based on title and the title is disputed, the question of title could be decided in the injunction Suit itself if the issue is simple and not complicated. If the issue of title is not a complicated one, the Plaintiff should not be relegated to a more cumbersome and expensive procedure of seeking declaration by paying enhanced Court-fee. At the same time, it has also been held that, when complicated issues of title are involved, it shall be proper for the Court to direct the Plaintiff to file a Suit for comprehensive relief of declaration and other reliefs. A thorough reading of the said judgment will show that the said Guidelines are given only as an elucidation of the discretion of the Court in such matters and that in exercise of discretion the Court will be justified in relegating the Plaintiff to a more cumbersome procedure of seeking declaration by making payment of additional Court-fee in cases involving complicated questions of title. In the present case, this Court does not think that any complicated question of title has arisen. 8. In the present case, this Court does not think that any complicated question of title has arisen. 8. In this regard, it shall be appropriate to make reference to the relevant provisions of law. The relevant provisions are sections 6, 34 & 37 of the Specific Relief Act. In a Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, question of title need not be gone into. So far as the declaratory Suits in respect of immovable property are concerned, Section 34, makes the relief a discretionary one subject to a negative qualification that, in a case where the Plaintiff could have asked for a consequential relief in addition to declaration and the Plaintiff has failed to seek such a consequential relief, the Court shall deny the discretionary relief of declaration. But no such corresponding Proviso is found in Section 37, dealing with the relief of injunction in respect of immovable properties. Hence, the guidelines issued by the Honorable Supreme Court in the above said judgment should be taken only as a guidelines for the sake of convenience of the Court for the proper exercise of the discretion in granting the relief of injunction. Even in the above said judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court, it has not been held that the Suit for bare injunction is not maintainable and it should be dismissed in toto. What has been observed therein is that in cases wherein complicated issues of title have arisen, the Plaintiff should be directed to file a more comprehensive Suit for declaration and other reliefs. Even in the said case dealt with by the Honorable Supreme Court, ultimately the court granted liberty to the Plaintiff therein to file a Suit for declaration and consequential relief by making the following observations: “Nothing state herein or by the Courts below shall be construed as expression of any opinion regarding title, in any future Suit for declaration and consequential reliefs that may be filed by the Appellants, in accordance with law.” 9. In addition, this Court also wants to point out yet another aspect, which is appropriate, Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 deals with the Suits for injunction. Sub-Clause (a) deals with the Suits for injunction with reference to any immovable property. In addition, this Court also wants to point out yet another aspect, which is appropriate, Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 deals with the Suits for injunction. Sub-Clause (a) deals with the Suits for injunction with reference to any immovable property. Sub-clause (a) is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience: “(a) where the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, and (i) Where the Plaintiff alleges that, his title to the property is denied or (ii) Where an issue is framed regarding the Plaintiff’s title of the property, Fee shall be computed on one-half of the market value of the property or on [rupees seven hundred and fifty], whichever is higher.” Clause (i) of sub-clause (a) says haw the Suit has to be valued when the Plaintiff himself silages that his title to the property is denied and Clause (2) of sub-clause (a) deals with the cases in which an issue regarding Plaintiffs title is framed even though the Plaintiff would not have alleged denial of his title. In both the cases the Court-fee payable is computed on the one half of the market value of the property or Rs. 750/-, whichever is higher. When we turn to Section 25(b), which deals with a Suit for declaration and injunction, we find that the very same Court-fee has been prescribed. Therefore, we cannot say that even after framing an issue regarding title which resulted in the collection of Court-fee, which is leviable for declaration, the Court can direct the Plaintiff to file a Suit for declaration. 10. It is doubtful whether such a corresponding provision is there in the State from which the case decided by the Supreme Court, arose. Had such a provision been there and it had been brought to the notice of the Honorable Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would have no doubt held that in view of the payment of the Court-fee equivalent to the Court-fee for declaration and injunction, the question of title also should be decided in the Suit for injunction even when the title of the Plaintiff was denied. 11. Admittedly in respect of a Gramanatham land, the Government had assigned Patta in 2005 to the Respondents / Plaintiffs. 11. Admittedly in respect of a Gramanatham land, the Government had assigned Patta in 2005 to the Respondents / Plaintiffs. The Appellants / Defendants, who chose to dispute the very assignment itself had subsequently, given a go by to the said contention and had chosen to take a stand that the assignment stood nullified by the failure of the assignees to put up construction within a specified time in accordance with the conditions of the assignment. It is pertinent to note that the conditions found in the assignment order do not automatically nullify the assignment in case of violation of anyone of the conditions. It stipulates the power of the Government to cancel the assignment. Till such cancellation, the Appellants / Defendants cannot contend that the assignment has been nullified. 12. Both the Courts below also concurrently found that, the suit properties are in the possession of the Respondents/Plaintiffs end the Appellants /Defendants failed to substantiate their contention that they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Such a concurrent finding of fact cannot, be interfered with by this Court in the Second Appeal unless the same is shown to be perverse. The Appellants/Defendants cannot contend that such a finding is perverse. 13. For all the reasons stated above this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and both the Courts below arrived at a correct conclusion that the suit property was in the possession and enjoyment of the Respondents/Plaintiffs by virtue of the assignments under Exs.A1 & A2 and that the Defendants had no right to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the Plaintiffs. The findings of the Courts below cannot be termed perverse and no interference is warranted. There is no merit in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal does not even merit admission and the same deserves dismissal at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.