JUDGMENT ARAVIND KUMAR, J.-These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed by XXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore dated 08.01.2010 in O.S. Nos. 3949/2006 & 10310/2006 whereunder suit filed by plaintiff for perpetual injunction in O.S. No. 3949/2006 came to be dismissed and suit O.S. No. 10310/2006 filed by plaintiffs (fourth defendant in O.S. No. 3949/2006 and his wife) also for perpetual injunction came to be decreed. 2. These two appeals are taken up together for final hearing since the suit schedule property involved in both the suits are one and the same and evidence both oral and documentary relied upon by respective parties in both the suits are identical. 3. Parties are referred to as per their rank in O.S. No. 3949/2006. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri S Gangadhar Aithal, learned Advocate appearing for appellant in both the appeals and Sri B.R. Vishwanath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in RFA No. 374/2010 and respondent No. 4 in RFA 373/2010. On a memo filed by learned counsel for appellant on 30.11.2011 in RFA 373/2010 appellant was permitted to delete respondent No. 3 as the suit against respondent No. 3 had been dismissed before trial Court. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in RFA 373/2010 are served and unrepresented. 5. Plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against defendants-1 to 4 from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of property bearing site Nos. 49, 50 & 51, Khata No. 206/1, situated at Horamavu Agara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring East to West 40 ft. and North to South 90 ft., in all 3600 sq. ft and hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule property' contending that one Sri Thimmaiah was the owner of said property and he had purchased an extent of 1 acre 19 guntas in Sy. No. 109/1 in Horamavu Agara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk on 26.12.1967 from one Sri Thimmashettappa and thereafter he formed sites and sold the suit schedule property to Sri E Ravikumar on 30.07.1991 who died intestate leaving behind his father Sri K Elumalai to succeed to his estate. No. 109/1 in Horamavu Agara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk on 26.12.1967 from one Sri Thimmashettappa and thereafter he formed sites and sold the suit schedule property to Sri E Ravikumar on 30.07.1991 who died intestate leaving behind his father Sri K Elumalai to succeed to his estate. Plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property on 21.03.2005 from said K Elumalai and on account of obstruction caused by defendants to the peaceful enjoyment of suit schedule property by attempting to dig pits, he filed a suit for perpetual injunction against defendants. 6. In O.S. No. 3949/2010 second defendant though served remained absent and was placed ex parte. On account of steps having not been taken to the third defendant, suit came to be dismissed against him on 08.02.2007. First and fourth defendant filed their written statements denying the averments made in plaint. 7. During the pendency of suit O.S.3949/2006 4th defendant along with his wife filed a suit O.S. No. 10310/2006 against Sri. Ajith Anand (plaintiff in O.S. No. 3949/2006) by contending plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of property bearing No. 109/1 and 110/5, Khata No. 290/5, Site Nos. 29 & 30 situated at Horamavu Agara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring East to West 40 ft. and North to South 60 ft morefully described in the plaint schedule contending that they acquired title to the said property under a registered sale deed dated 02.03.2006 executed by Sriyuths Papaiah and Ravikumar @ Ravindra Babu and said Papaiah had acquired the land bearing Sy. Nos. 109/1 and 110/5 measuring 26 guntas and 8 guntas respectively in FDP No. 19/2005 on account of judgment and decree passed in O.S No. 3694/1996-97 which decree was duly registered with the jurisdictional Sub Registrar Office and said Papaiah had formed a residential layout and property purchased by plaintiffs was assessed to tax by Horamavu Agara Gram Panchayat and khata has been issued in favour of plaintiffs. From the date of purchase of said property they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment. Since defendant who has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit property has filed a suit in O.S. No. 3949/2006 against Papaiah and the plaintiffs and has been attempting to interfere with plaintiffs possession in respect of the property purchased by them, they sought for grant of relief of perpetual injunction against them. Since defendant who has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit property has filed a suit in O.S. No. 3949/2006 against Papaiah and the plaintiffs and has been attempting to interfere with plaintiffs possession in respect of the property purchased by them, they sought for grant of relief of perpetual injunction against them. 7.1 The sole defendant i.e., plaintiff in O.S. No. 3949/2006 did not file written statement but filed a memo on 23.11.2008 to treat the averments made in the plaint O.S. No. 3949/2006 as written statement in O.S. No. 10310/2006. Trial Court framed issues and on evaluation of entire evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, by judgment and decree dated 08.01.2000 dismissed the suit O.S. No. 3949/2006 and decreed the suit O.S. No. 10310/2006. Both these Judgment and decrees have been assailed by the plaintiff in O.S.3949/2006 in these two appeals. 8. It is the contention of Mr. Gangadhar Aithal, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff, that trial Court erred in dismissing the suit without proper appreciation of evidence despite admission by the fourth defendant in his evidence that property claimed to have been purchased by him is the property belonging to the plaintiff and they are same. He would draw the attention of Court to the cross examination of P.W. 1 in O.S. No. 10310/2006 whereunder he has identified the property depicted in the photographs produced and marked as Ex.P-12 and P-16 in O.S.3949/2006 as the property purchased by him and hence trial Court committed a serious error in arriving at a conclusion that properties of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4 are different and separate. He would elaborate his submission by contending that trial Court without considering the fact that property to an extent of 1 acre 19 guntas in Sy. No. 109/1 of Horamavu village was purchased by Thimmaiah from Thimma Shettappa under Ex.P-1 dated 26.12.1961 and said Thimmaiah had formed a layout and sold the sites. One such site was sold in favour of Sri. No. 109/1 of Horamavu village was purchased by Thimmaiah from Thimma Shettappa under Ex.P-1 dated 26.12.1961 and said Thimmaiah had formed a layout and sold the sites. One such site was sold in favour of Sri. E. Ravikumar under Ex.P-2 who died intestate and as he was a bachelor and on account of his mother having pre deceased him, his father Sri K Elumalai as his only legal heir had succeeded to the said property and he conveyed the suit property in favour of plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 21.03.2005 Ex.P-3 and same could not have been the subject matter for partition in the alleged suit filed by children of Anjanappa against Thimmaiah and Papaiah in O.S. No. 3694/1997 which was the subject matter of FDP No. 19/2005 and the very same site sold to the plaintiff also could not have been sold by said Papaiah in favour of fourth defendant and as such, fourth defendant did not get any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and he cannot be construed to be in lawful possession of the said property. Hence, he contends the finding of trial Court that fourth defendant is in lawful possession of suit schedule property and plaintiff is not in possession of the property purchased by him is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 9. He would also contend that trial Court has without any justification raised doubt with regard to boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds produced by plaintiff without considering the fact that what is sold under Ex.P-1 is a site which is a portion of Sy. No. 109/1 and trial Court had got confused itself with regard to site Numbers and Survey Number which itself would indicate that there has been non application of mind by trial Court. The observation made while disposing of I.A.I with regard to identity of suit schedule property had no bearing whatsoever and same should not have been considered by the trial Court at the time of passing of judgment and decree inasmuch as, said finding was recorded prior to trial. He would also contend that trial Court did not consider the fact that decree which was relied upon by fourth defendant culminating in final decree proceedings was a collusive decree and not binding on the plaintiff particularly when the vendor of plaintiff was not made a party. He would also contend that trial Court did not consider the fact that decree which was relied upon by fourth defendant culminating in final decree proceedings was a collusive decree and not binding on the plaintiff particularly when the vendor of plaintiff was not made a party. He would also contend that trial Court has failed to look into documentary evidence namely, Exs.P-4 and P-5, Khata demand register extracts for the years 1994-95 and 2005-06. On these grounds he seeks for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by trial Court. 10. Per contra, Sri B.R. Vishwanath, learned counsel appearing for fourth defendant would support the judgment and decree passed by trial Court and contends that trial Court while disposing of I.A. No. 1 filed in O.S. No. 3949/2000 had clearly held that "sites claimed by fourth defendant do not overlap the suit schedule property and there by no irreparable injury will be caused to the defendants i.e., plaintiff herein if they are restrained from putting up any construction on the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit" and subsequent to the trial, it has been noticed by trial Court that plaintiff has been unable to demonstrate in which Survey Number suit schedule property was carved out and he has pleaded his ignorance about the sketch produced by him and there being no other material evidence available on record, trial Court had rightly rejected the claim of plaintiff and accepted the plea of fourth defendant and his wife to decree the suit filed by them and to dismiss the suit filed by plaintiff. Hence, he prays for dismissing both the appeals. 11. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of judgment and decrees passed by trial Court and also on re-appreciation of entire evidence tendered by the parties before trial Court both oral and documentary, I am of the considered view that following points would arise for my consideration: "(1) Whether trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit O.S. No. 3949/2006 and decreeing the suit O.S. 10310/2006? (2) Whether there has been improper appreciation of evidence tendered by the parties or there has been non appreciation of any material evidence available on record resulting in material irregularity calling for interference by this Court? (3) What order?" Factual Matrix: 12. (2) Whether there has been improper appreciation of evidence tendered by the parties or there has been non appreciation of any material evidence available on record resulting in material irregularity calling for interference by this Court? (3) What order?" Factual Matrix: 12. Plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit schedule property measuring East to West 40 ft, North to South 90 ft in all, 3600 sq. ft under a sale deed dated 21.03.2005 from one Sri K. Elumalai. The said property was earlier purchased by Sri E. Ravikumar from one Sri Thimmaiah under sale deed dated 30.07.1991 and he is said to have expired intestate as a bachelor and as such his father succeeded to his estate since his mother had predeceased him. The suit schedule property is said to have been carved out of Sy. No. 109/1 and it was conveyed in favour of E Ravikumar by Sri Thimmaiah who had purchased it from Thimma Shettappa under a registered sale deed dated 26.12.1997. On account of obstruction said to have been caused by fourth defendant i.e., first plaintiff in O.S. No. 10310/2006plaintiff sought for relief of perpetual injunction against him and his vendors. 13. Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 in the said suit i.e., O.S. No. 3949/2006 appeared and contested the matter by filing a detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It was specifically contended by first defendant that Thimmaiah had not purchased the property bearing Sy. No. 109/1 of Horamavu Agara village, in his individual capacity but had purchased the same on behalf of joint family consisting of himself, Thimmaiah and Anjanappa and sons of late Muniswamappa under a registered sale deed dated 26.12.1967. It was contended that property sold by Thimmaiah to Ravikumar and same having been succeeded by Elumalai has nothing to do with agricultural property owned and possessed by Papaiah and his brothers Sriyuths Anjanappa and Thimmaiah. It was contended that when Thimmaiah had attempted to alienate the family properties, children of Anjanappa filed a suit in O.S. No. 3694/1997 in respect of property bearing No. 109/1 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas including 3 guntas of kharab and Sy. No. 110/5 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas totally measuring 2 acres 23 guntas which lands were situated adjacent to each other and ultimately said suit ended in a compromise and under the final decree an extent of 23 guntas in Sy. No. 110/5 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas totally measuring 2 acres 23 guntas which lands were situated adjacent to each other and ultimately said suit ended in a compromise and under the final decree an extent of 23 guntas in Sy. No. 109/1 and 8 guntas in Sy. No. 110/5 fell to his share (first defendant-Thimmaiah). 14. Fourth defendant also filed a separate written statement contending that first defendant had formed layout in Sy. Nos. 109/1 and 110/5 after having been allotted share to an extent of 34 guntas in these two lands in the partition suit O.S. No. 3694/96-97 and he had purchased site Nos. 29 and 30 along with his wife Smt. Premalatha from first defendant and his son under a registered sale deed dated 02.03.2006 and had got the khata transferred to his name and was intending to put up residential house at which point of time the plaintiff had filed the suit and was obstructing the construction work. He specifically contended that site Nos. 49,50 & 51, Khata No. 206/1 claimed by plaintiff are totally different properties and there was no necessity for fourth defendant to interfere with said properties claimed by plaintiff. The sale deed of plaintiff do not disclose the survey number in which the suit schedule property has been carved out. The sites adjacent and contiguous to the property held by fourth defendant is surrounded by the property of Papaiah i.e., Sy. No. 109/1 and 110/5. Plaintiff is unable to locate the identity of property. On these grounds he had sought for dismissal of the suit. 15. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed following issues for its adjudication: "(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner and in possession of suit schedule property? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves interference of defendants? (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought? (4) What order or decree?" 16. Plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and produced 16 documents by getting it marked as Exs.P-1 to P-16. Fourth defendant in O.S.3949/2006 and plaintiff in O.S. No. 10310/2006 got himself examined as P.W.1 and produced six documents and got it marked as Exs.P-1 to P-6. (4) What order or decree?" 16. Plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and produced 16 documents by getting it marked as Exs.P-1 to P-16. Fourth defendant in O.S.3949/2006 and plaintiff in O.S. No. 10310/2006 got himself examined as P.W.1 and produced six documents and got it marked as Exs.P-1 to P-6. On evaluation of both oral and documentary evidence, trial Court dismissed the suit O.S. No. 3949/2006 and decreed the suit O.S. No. 10310/2006 which are under challenge in these two appeals. Re: Point Nos. 1 and 2: 17. It has been the specific case of plaintiff that he purchased the property namely sites bearing Nos. 49, 50 & 51, Khata No. 206/1 situated at Horamavu Agara village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring East to West 40 ft and North to South 90 ft totally 3600 sq.ft under sale deed dated 21.03.2005 which document came to be marked as Ex.P-3. The vendor of plaintiff is Sri K Elumalai. He claims to have acquired title by inheritance namely through his son Sri. E. Ravikumar who is said to have purchased the suit schedule property from Sri Thimmaiah under a sale deed dated 30.07.1991 Ex.P-2 and said E. Ravikumar having died intestate and his mother having predeceased him his father Sri. Elumalai is said to have succeeded to his estate. The vendor of Sri. E. Ravikumar is said to have purchased the land bearing Sy. No. 109/1 from one Sri Thimmashettappa under a sale deed dated 26.12.1967 which came to be marked as Ex.P-1. Perusal of Exs.P-2 and P-3 does not indicate that suit schedule property has been carved out of Sy. No. 109/1. In fact, Ex.P-2 does not indicate that the vendor therein namely Sri Thimmaiah had acquired title to the property conveyed by him in favour of E Ravikumar which was acquired by him under the sale deed dated 26.12.1967 Ex.P-1. Thus, the cloud created on the title to the suit schedule property was required to be explained by the plaintiff or in other words, the burden was cast on the plaintiff to demonstrate that property purchased by fourth defendant and his wife which undisputedly was carved out of Sy. No. 109/1 would relate to the property purchased by plaintiff and it was also carved out of Sy.No109/1. 18. No. 109/1 would relate to the property purchased by plaintiff and it was also carved out of Sy.No109/1. 18. Trial Court noticed that in Ex.P-3 i.e., sale deed dated 21.03.2005 there is no reference to sale deed dated 30.07.1991- Ex.P-2 and in the said document there is no reference to sale deed dated 26.12.1967-Ex.P-1. In fact, P.W.1 in his cross examination dated 26.09.2009 has admitted to the following effect: "I cannot say xxxx are different. I have gone through the 1991 sale deed. There is no reference in 1991 sale deed pertaining to 1967 sale deed. It is true to suggest that in my sale deed i.e., sale deed pertaining to the year 2005 also did not contain any reference of 1967 sale deed. I cannot say from which Sy. No. my property is carved but I have produced the sketch of the area. The said sketch xxx. 19. Plaintiff pleads his ignorance as to who formed the layout and who had assessed the suit schedule property to property tax. Though plaintiff claimed that he had obtained khata from BBMP it did not see the light of the day before trial Court. No document whatsoever was produced to establish payment of betterment charges. Thus, plaintiff has not been able to establish that the suit schedule property was carved out of Sy. No. 109/1 as claimed by him. These aspects have been taken note of by the trial Court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff i.e., O.S. No. 3949/2006. 20. Trial Court while adjudicating I.A. No. 2 filed in O.S. No. 3949/2006 and granting an order of temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff and restraining the defendants from putting up any construction over the suit schedule property had observed that sites claimed by fourth defendant and plaintiff are quite different and they do not overlap and this observation made by trial Court has been reiterated by fourth defendant in his affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief in O.S. No. 10310/2006 to contend that he is entitled for injunction against the plaintiff in O.S. No. 3949/2006. 21. Fourth defendant is tracing his title to the property purchased by him namely, sites measuring 40 ft × 60 ft. (site Nos. 29 & 30) by virtue of sale deed dated 02.03.2006 which came to be marked as Ex.P-1 in O.S. No. 10310/2006. 21. Fourth defendant is tracing his title to the property purchased by him namely, sites measuring 40 ft × 60 ft. (site Nos. 29 & 30) by virtue of sale deed dated 02.03.2006 which came to be marked as Ex.P-1 in O.S. No. 10310/2006. A perusal of said Exhibit would indicate that it has been sold by Sriyuths Papaiah and Ravikumar wherein it has been indicated that by virtue of a compromise decree passed in O.S. No. 3694/1997 and final decree drawn pursuant thereto in FDP No. 19/2005 on 10.08.2005, they (Vendor of 4 defendant) had acquired title to the suit schedule property and other adjacent property to an total extent of 34 guntas. First defendant Papaiah in his written statement filed in O.S. No. 3949/2006 also admit that the vendor of Sri. E Ravi Kumar had undivided right, title and interest in the lands measuring 1 acre 19 guntas and 1 acre 4 guntas in Sy. No. 109/1 and 110/5 respectively of Horamavu Agara village. Thus, it would emerge that plaintiff's (O.S. No. 3949/2006) vendor was also having undivided right, title and interest in Sy. No. 109/1. It is no doubt true that plaintiff has been unable to demonstrate that suit schedule property is carved out of Sy. No. 109/1, however, the fact remains that the said Thimmaiah who sold the suit schedule property in favour of E Ravikumar (plaintiff's vendor) was possessing right, title and interest in Sy. No. 109/1 as evidenced from sale deed Ex.P-1. It has also come in the pleadings namely, written statement of Defendant No. 1 that said land bearing Sy. No. 109/1 was not purchased by Thimmaiah in his individual capacity but on behalf of joint family and as such, he did not have any independent right to alienate the same. On these grounds, a suit for partition had been filed by the children of Anjanappa (Thimmaiah's elder brother's children) in O.S. No. 3694/1997 on the ground that said Thimmaiah was attempting to alienate the property belonging to joint family. These chain of events would clearly indicate that both the properties namely, property claimed by plaintiff as well as property claimed by fourth defendant is formed in Sy. No. 109/1. These chain of events would clearly indicate that both the properties namely, property claimed by plaintiff as well as property claimed by fourth defendant is formed in Sy. No. 109/1. At this juncture, it would be of relevant to note the admission of fourth defendant in the cross examination dated 19.11.2009 i.e., plaintiff in O.S. No. 10310/2006 which is to the following effect: "Now Ex.P-12 in O.S. No. 3949/06 is my property. I claimed injunction in the very same property. I purchased xxx Sri Papaiah. It is true to suggest that Ex.P12 photograph is purchased by me from Papaiah." This admission of fourth defendant would clearly indicate that property which he is claiming to be in his possession is the property which overlaps with the property which the plaintiff in O.S. No. 3949/2006 is claiming. This vital admission has been over looked by trial Court or has not been considered at all. Trial Court has proceeded to rely upon the final decree proceedings in FDP No. 19/2005 Ex.P-6 to arrive at a conclusion that 'C' schedule therein measuring 34 guntas fell to the share of first defendant herein and he formed the sites and sold one such site to the fourth defendant as such, fourth defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the site purchased by him and his wife under the sale deed dated 02.03.2006 Ex.P-1. There is neither layout plan nor an order of conversion which would evidence the formation of site in Sy. No. 109/1 which the fourth defendant is claiming to have purchased from first defendant and Sri Ravikumar. Trial Court has held that the boundaries mentioned in FDP 19/2005-Ex.P-6 tallies with the sale deed dated 02.03.2006-Ex.P-1 which is not only erroneous but contrary to the factual aspect. In Ex.P-1 sale deed dated 02.03.2006 under which fourth defendant and his wife claimed to have purchased the sites bearing No. 29 & 30 measures 40 ft × 60 ft, whereas, the schedule to Ex.P-6 would indicate the share allotted to Sri Papaiah i.e., first defendant measures 34 guntas in Sy. No. 109/1 and 110/5 there is no reference to the site bearing No. 29 & 30 whatsoever. No. 109/1 and 110/5 there is no reference to the site bearing No. 29 & 30 whatsoever. As such, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10310/2006 has also utterly failed to demonstrate that the property claimed by plaintiff does not over lap with the property purchased by him or they are different or that property purchased by plaintiff does not lie in Sy. No. 109/1. As already noticed herein above, fourth defendant has also not established that there was a layout formed by first defendant and the property claimed to have been purchased by him along with his wife on 02.03.2006 has been carved out of Sy. No. 109/1 in the area measuring 34 guntas which was said to have been allotted to the share of said Papaiah in FDP No. 19/2005 Ex.P-6. Thus, to this extent, there has been erroneous appreciation of evidence by trial Court and also non consideration of material evidence available on record i.e., both oral and documentary as discussed herein above. 22. Undisputedly, property claimed by both the parties is a vacant site. Fourth defendant is claiming title from first defendant and Sri Ravikumar who is said to have conveyed site No. 29 & 30 to fourth defendant and his wife under sale deed dated 02.03.2006 Ex.P-1.Plaintiff claims to have purchased sites bearing No. 49, 50 & 51 under sale deed dated 21.03.2005 Ex.P-3 (prior to sale deed of fourth defendant) and traces his title to Sri Thimmaiah who was undisputedly having right, title and interest in Sy. No. 109/1 which both the parties claim that their sites have been carved out in the said Survey Number. The circumstances under which a bare suit for injunction would be sufficient and when suit for declaration with consequential reliefs required to be filed, has been explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. and others, reported in 2008 (3) KCCR 1769 by formulating the following amongst other points for consideration: (1) What is the scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property? After analysing the various case laws, Apex Court has held as under: "17. and others, reported in 2008 (3) KCCR 1769 by formulating the following amongst other points for consideration: (1) What is the scope of a suit for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property? After analysing the various case laws, Apex Court has held as under: "17. To Summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under: (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 site, 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. 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 necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight-forward, 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 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. 23. In the background of contours laid down by Apex Court, when the facts on hand are examined it would emerge that there is a cloud raised over fourth defendant's title to the property which is said to have been purchased by him. Thus, ignoring the claim of plaintiff and ignoring the admission of the fourth defendant in his cross examination which was to the effect that property claimed by him and his wife is the property which is also claimed by the plaintiff, trial Court could not have unilaterally decreed the suit of fourth defendant alone and thereby trial Court committed a serious error in erroneously appreciating the available evidence on record and also not considering the admission of fourth defendant in his cross examination, resulting in material irregularity. Hence, point Nos. (1) and (2) formulated herein above requires to be answered partly in the affirmative i.e., in favour of appellant- plaintiff and against respondents 1 and 2 in RFA 374/2010. Re: Point No. (3): 24. For the reasons aforestated, following order is passed: ORDER (1) RFA No. 373 of 2010 is hereby dismissed. Hence, point Nos. (1) and (2) formulated herein above requires to be answered partly in the affirmative i.e., in favour of appellant- plaintiff and against respondents 1 and 2 in RFA 374/2010. Re: Point No. (3): 24. For the reasons aforestated, following order is passed: ORDER (1) RFA No. 373 of 2010 is hereby dismissed. (2) RFA No. 374 of 2010 is hereby allowed and judgment and decree passed by trial Court in O.S. No. 10310/2006 is hereby set aside and suit O.S. No. 10310 of 2006 is hereby dismissed. (3) Dismissal of the appeal and the suit would not come in the way of parties seeking comprehensive relief before appropriate and jurisdictional Court by initiating appropriate proceedings. (4) In the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.