Judgment : 1. The second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.08.2009 passed in A.S.No.12 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.09.2008 made in O.S.No.341 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent herein against the appellants, seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants, their men, agent etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs. 3. The suit was decreed after the trial, as prayed for without costs, against which, the defendants preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, by its Judgment and Decree, dated 19.08.2009, confirmed the Judgment and Decree and dismissed the appeal without costs. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree passed by the Appellate Court, this second appeal has been preferred by the defendants. 4. It is seen that the second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether the suit for bare injunction, when there is a cloud or dispute or rival claim on title of the property is maintainable ? 2. Whether the question of title can be decided in a suit for bare injunction, when the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law ? 3. Whether the burden of proof regarding possession lies on the plaintiff or defendant in a suit for injunction ?" 5. Substantial Questions of Law 1 & 2 : The respondent / plaintiff has stated that her mother, Tmt.Muniammal inherited the suit schedule property from her father, late Ganapathy Naicker and on 13.07.2007, she execute a settlement deed in favour of her daughter, the respondent / plaintiff in Document No.7172/07 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram, stating that on 02.08.2007, at about 3 p.m, when the plaintiff and her family members were in the said property for developing the said property, the defendants, who were utter strangers to the suit schedule property with the help of land developers and brokers attempted to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which was resisted by the plaintiff and her relatives. Then, she gave a police complaint at Selaiyur police station and subsequently, filed the suit. 6. Then, she gave a police complaint at Selaiyur police station and subsequently, filed the suit. 6. The appellants / defendants have admitted that the suit property was originally owned by Ganapathy Naicker, maternal grand father of the respondent / plaintiff and after his demise, the same was inherited by her mother, Muniammal. The written statement filed by the second appellant / D2 was adopted by the first appellant / D1, wherein it is stated that on 21.03.1994, Muniammal had entered into an oral sale agreement with the first appellant / D1, paternal uncle's son of the said Muniammal and accordingly, he was also put in possession of the suit property and further, stated that Muniammal had executed a general power of attorney deed, dated 21.03.1994 in favour of the first defendant, registered as Document No.7429 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram, authorising the first appellant / D1 to sell and administer the suit property. In the written statement, the second appellant / D2 has stated that the first defendant had been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property as power of attorney agent of Muniammal. On 23.07.2007, the first appellant / first defendant sold the property to the second appellant / second defendant, as power of attorney of Muniammal, for a sum of Rs.2,44,160/-, as per a registered sale deed. According to the second defendant / D2, patta was also transferred in the name of second appellant on 18.09.2007. On 28.07.2007, the first defendant received an undated letter from Muniammal, informing him about the cancellation of general power of attorney deed, dated 28.07.2007, registered as Document No.3487 of 2007 by Muniammal. It was argued on the side of the appellants that the property was legally transferred in the name of the second defendant on 23.07.2007 itself, hence, Muniammal had no right to revoke the power of attorney deed, executed in favour of the first appellant / first defendant, on account of the oral sale agreement, dated 21.03.1994. 7. The appellants herein who were defendants before the trial court, have raised a plea that the suit for bare injunction filed by the respondent / plaintiff was not legally maintainable, on the ground that there was a cloud in respect of the title, as there was rival claim on the title of the property. 7. The appellants herein who were defendants before the trial court, have raised a plea that the suit for bare injunction filed by the respondent / plaintiff was not legally maintainable, on the ground that there was a cloud in respect of the title, as there was rival claim on the title of the property. Similarly, the second substantial question of law raised by the appellants is whether the question of title could be decided in the suit for bare injunction, when the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law. 8. The case of the respondent / plaintiff is that the property was originally owned by late Ganapathi Naicker and the said property was inherited by his daughter, late Tmt.Muniammal, mother of the respondent / plaintiff. The aforesaid factum is not in dispute in the suit and appeals. Hence, it is an admitted fact that late Tmt.Muniammal, owned the suit schedule property and her mother executed the settlement deed, dated 13.07.2007 in her favour, out of love and affection and the same was registered on the said date on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram. The respondent / plaintiff has stated that she was in possession and enjoyment of the property, as its absolute owner, however, on 02.08.2007 at about 3 p.m, when the plaintiff and her family members were in the suit property for developing the same, defendants with the help of land developers and brokers, attempted to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and hence, the respondent / plaintiff lodged complaint at Selaiyur police station and subsequently filed the suit, seeking bare injunction. In support of her contention, the respondent / plaintiff has produced the original settlement deed, executed by her mother, Muniammal as Ex.A.1 and the copy of the complaint, dated 02.08.2007 given by her before the Inspector of Police, Selaiyur police station as Ex.A.3. 9. In the written statement filed by the second defendant, he has stated that he purchased the property from late Muniammal through her power of attorney, the first appellant / D1 herein on 23.07.2007, which is admittedly subsequent to the date of the settlement deed, Ex.A.1, executed by Muniammal in favour of her daughter, the respondent herein. 10. 9. In the written statement filed by the second defendant, he has stated that he purchased the property from late Muniammal through her power of attorney, the first appellant / D1 herein on 23.07.2007, which is admittedly subsequent to the date of the settlement deed, Ex.A.1, executed by Muniammal in favour of her daughter, the respondent herein. 10. It was argued on behalf of the appellants / defendants that Muniammal had sent a letter, Ex.B.2, stating that she had revoked the power of attorney deed executed in favour of the first appellant / D1, for which a cancellation deed was also executed and registered on the said date in Document No.3484/2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram. It was further argued on behalf of the appellants that late Muniammal had no right to cancel the power of attorney, on the ground that the power of attorney was coupled with interest. It is an admitted fact that the second appellant / D2 alone had filed written statement, which was adopted by the first appellant. There was no separate written statement filed by the first appellant / D1, stating his possession and enjoyment of the property. In the evidence, the first appellant / D1, as D.W.1 has deposed that on 21.03.1994, he had entered into an oral sale agreement with late Muniammal and he paid the entire sale consideration, fixed at Rs.4,000/-, calculating the sale consideration at Rs.500/- per cent. It is seen that the power of attorney deed was executed by late Muniammal in favour of the first appellant, only on the said date, 21.03.1994. However, there is no averments in the registered power of attorney deed, to establish that late Muniammal had received any amount from the first appellant, on the said date of oral agreement towards consideration. 11. The first appellant, who was examined as D.W.1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that there is no such averments in the power of attorney deed, dated 21.03.1994, with regard to the oral sale agreement or on the alleged passing of consideration of Rs.4,000/- paid by the first appellant to late Muniammal. Had there been any oral agreement on the very same date and passing of consideration, it could have been stated in the registered document, Ex.B.1, power of attorney. Had there been any oral agreement on the very same date and passing of consideration, it could have been stated in the registered document, Ex.B.1, power of attorney. The first appellant / D1 has stated that there was an oral agreement of sale, pursuant to the same, power of attorney deed was executed by late Muniammal in favour of the first appellant and the same was supported by consideration, however, there is no proof for the oral sale agreement and passing of sale consideration. The first appellant / D1 has also admitted that there is no averments in the power of attorney deed, even with regard to handing over of the possession of schedule of property to him by late Muniammal. On the aforesaid circumstances, the oral evidence of the first appellant / D1 stating that there had been oral agreement of sale between himself and that late Muniammal and that the power of attorney deed was supported by consideration of Rs.4,000/- and that the possession of the property was handed over to him by Muniammal, without any averments in the document and the said averments of the appellants would not be sustainable in law, since the same is against the normal conduct of any reasonable prudent man. 12. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / plaintiff, had the averments of the appellants / defendants been true, atleast all those facts could have been incorporated, at least in the registered power of attorney deed, that was executed, on the alleged dated, 21.03.1994. Had the entire consideration been paid, based on an oral agreement of sale, there could be no possibility for the first appellant to get only a power of attorney deed, even without incorporating the aforesaid averments in the power of attorney deed and keeping quiet for about 13 years. 13. The evidence of the second appellant, who was examined as D.W.2 is with regard to the sale deed, executed by the first appellant in favour of the second appellant on 26.06.2007, which was admittedly subsequent to the settlement deed, executed by late Muniammal in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. There is no supporting documents to show that the possession and enjoyment of the property was given to the first appellant / D1 by late Muniammal, pursuant to the power of attorney deed. There is no supporting documents to show that the possession and enjoyment of the property was given to the first appellant / D1 by late Muniammal, pursuant to the power of attorney deed. The appellants have stated that after the power of attorney deed, dated 21.03.1994, the first appellant / D1 was cultivating the land, however, the first appellant / D1 has deposed that there was no supporting document like adangal produced by him to show that the land was cultivated by him. 14. It is seen that there is no counter claim in the written statement filed by the second appellant / D2, for the reasons best known to him, either seeking declaration of title in his favour and consequential relief or challenging the revocation deed or settlement deed executed by late Muniammal, prior to his sale deed. The oral and documentary evidence available on record would clearly show that late Muniammal had been in possession and enjoyment of the property, though she had executed power of attorney deed in favour of the first appellant / D1. Subsequently on 13.07.2007, late Muniammal had executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughter, the respondent herein. The document reads that the possession and enjoyment was handed over to the respondent / plaintiff by late Muniammal, on the date of the settlement deed. As per the copy of the sale deed, Ex.A.6, the first appellant / D1 has made an averment that he had paid the tax and all the dues payable to the Government, however, as per the evidence, he has not paid any tax payable to the Government, which could be construed only a self contradictory version of the appellants. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 has held as follows : "Where a cloud is raised over the 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 the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. 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 the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. A cloud is said to raise over a person's title, when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown." 16. It is a well settled proposition of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions and also in the decision referred to above that a suit would not be maintainable for recovery of possession, where there is a cloud raised over the plaintiff's title. Similarly, in a suit for seeking permanent injunction against the True owner of the property, without establishing the legal possession, the relief sought for could not be maintainable. 17. In the instant case, there is a concurrent finding by the Courts below, based on evidence. When the finding is based on evidence, it cannot be construed as a perverse finding, to be interfered with in the Second Appeal. In this case, it has been established by the respondent / plaintiff that the title and possession of the suit property was with her mother, late Muniammal, on the date of the settlement deed, Ex.A.1, executed by her in favour of the respondent / plaintiff and as per the settlement deed, the possession was also entrusted to the respondent / plaintiff. There is no independent suit or counter claim by the appellants / defendants, seeking declaration of title or challenging revocation of power of attorney against the first appellant or settlement deed, executed by her in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. Late Muniammal, who owned the property had every right, to execute settlement deed in favour of her daughter, the respondent / plaintiff. The settlement deed was executed by Muniammal, prior to the sale deed being executed by the first appellant / D1, stating him as power of attorney of late Muniammal and further, after cancelling the power of attorney deed, late Muniammal had informed the same to the first appellant / D1. Though the first appellant / D1 had received the letter from Muniammal, he has stated that he received the letter only on 30.07.2007. Though the first appellant / D1 had received the letter from Muniammal, he has stated that he received the letter only on 30.07.2007. On the said circumstance, the Courts below have viewed that there was no cloud in deciding the title and possession of the property in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. 18. Referring the earlier decisions rendered in Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14 , Annaimuthu Thevar v. Alagammal, (2005) 6 SCC 202 , Sajjadanashin Sayed Md.B.E. Edr v. Musa Dadhabai Ummer, (2000) 3 SCC 350 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 has summarized the legal position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property 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. 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 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." 19. It is a well settled proposition of law that merely based on the denial of title by the defendant or the defendant's disputing the title of the plaintiff, the Court cannot decide that there is a cloud raised over the title of the plaintiff, when there is legally acceptable evidence to decide the title of the plaintiff, when the possession is not with the defendant. It must be a real cloud with regard to the title claimed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff, who is in legal possession of the property is entitled to maintain a suit for bare injunction, restraining the defendant from disturbing his / her possession, for which, there is no legal bar in maintaining the suit. 20. It must be a real cloud with regard to the title claimed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff, who is in legal possession of the property is entitled to maintain a suit for bare injunction, restraining the defendant from disturbing his / her possession, for which, there is no legal bar in maintaining the suit. 20. In the instant case, admittedly the property was owned by late Muniammal, mother of the respondent / plaintiff and as per the settlement deed, Ex.A.1, she transferred her title in favour of her daughter, the respondent / plaintiff herein and also handed over the possession and enjoyment of the property, as per the settlement deed. The appellants / defendants are claiming title in favour of the second appellant / D1 by virtue of the sale deed, that was executed by the first appellant / D1 in favour of the second appellant / D2, as power of attorney of late Muniammal, though she had executed the settlement deed on 13.07.2007, prior to the alleged sale deed executed by the first appellant, stating him as power of attorney of Muniammal. There is no separate suit, seeking declaration of title and other consequential reliefs filed by the second appellant / D2 herein and similarly, there is no counter claim made by the second appellant / D2 in the suit. As per the power of attorney deed, it is clear that it is only a simple power of attorney deed, which was not supported by any consideration, being passed on the power of attorney holder, hence, the right of cancellation of power of attorney deed by late Muniammal cannot be disputed by the appellants. The self-contrary version of oral sale agreement by the first appellant / D1, plea of payment of consideration on the same date of the registered power of attorney deed, without incorporating any averments in this regard would also show that the claim of the appellants are vexatious in nature, not supported by any document. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above, the Court can rightly hold that there was no cloud over the title of the respondent / plaintiff in favour of the appellants / defendants and further, there is no evidence to show that the appellants were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above, the Court can rightly hold that there was no cloud over the title of the respondent / plaintiff in favour of the appellants / defendants and further, there is no evidence to show that the appellants were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. On the other hand, as discussed in this Judgment in the previous paragraphs, the evidence available on record would clearly show that the respondent / plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property. 21. In the instant case on hand, based on the evidence available on record, it is clear that neither the first appellant / D1 nor the second appellant / D2 was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, on the date of filing of the suit. On the contrary, the respondent / plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property, as per the concurrent findings of the Courts below, based on the evidence. 22. It is a well settled proposition of law that (i) in a suit seeking recovery of possession of an immovable property, where the person, who is in possession disputes the title or other rights, based on which, recovery of possession is sought for, declaratory relief pertaining to recovery of possession is mandatory. Even in such a case, had there been admission of title, for seeking recovery of possession, declaratory relief would not be mandatory; (ii) a person, who is in possession of the property is entitled to seek injunction against all the persons, except the true owner; (iii) a person, who is in legal possession of a property, as tenant or a person having leasehold right is entitled to seek injunction, even against the true owner, restraining him from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, except under due process of law. 23. The appellants here have raised a substantial question of law, whether question of title can be decided in a suit for bare injunction by the Courts below, however, it is seen that the Courts below have not granted any declaration of title and the relief granted is only permanent injunction in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. 23. The appellants here have raised a substantial question of law, whether question of title can be decided in a suit for bare injunction by the Courts below, however, it is seen that the Courts below have not granted any declaration of title and the relief granted is only permanent injunction in favour of the respondent / plaintiff. The suit was decreed by the trial court, granting permanent injunction, restraining the appellants / defendants, their men or agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondent / plaintiff, that was confirmed by the appellate Court. However, there is no declaration of title, as stated by the appellants. Having considered the factual and legal aspects, this Court decides the substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the respondent / plaintiff and against the appellants / defendants. 24. Substantial Question of Law 3 : It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the Courts below have shifted the burden on defendants in respect of burden of proof regarding possession of the property. As answered for the substantial questions 1 and 2 in this second appeal, it is an admitted fact that late Tmt.Muniammal, mother of the respondent / plaintiff had been the absolute owner of the suit property. She had executed a settlement deed in favour of her daughter, the respondent / plaintiff on 13.07.2007 under Document No.7172/07 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram. As per the document, the possession and enjoyment of the property was with late Muniammal till the settlement deed was executed to her. On the date of the settlement deed, she handed over the possession and enjoyment of the property to her daughter, the respondent herein. 25. As per the power of attorney deed, the copy of which has been marked as Ex.B.1, possession of the property was not handed over to the power of attorney, the first appellant / D1. Similarly, the said power of attorney deed is not clubbed with any interest, on the ground of passing of consideration in favour of power of attorney. Even the first appellant / D1 has admitted that there was no averments of handing over the possession of the property to him by Tmt.Muniammal. Similarly, the said power of attorney deed is not clubbed with any interest, on the ground of passing of consideration in favour of power of attorney. Even the first appellant / D1 has admitted that there was no averments of handing over the possession of the property to him by Tmt.Muniammal. It is also well settled that a power of attorney is only an agent, hence, he cannot claim any independent right in respect of possession against his principal, under the Law of Agency, unless there is specific averments in the power of attorney deed or any independent document for the arrangement to claim independent right of possession against his principal. The plea of the alleged oral sale agreement of the appellants between the first appellant / D1 and late Muniammal, on the date of power of attorney deed, has not been established by way of evidence, hence, the said claim of the appellant is not legally sustainable. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellants cannot raise a ground that burden of proof regarding possession of the property was shifted by the Courts below on the defendant, since the respondent / plaintiff has established her legal possession, by way of oral and documentary evidence. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view to answer the substantial question of law No.3 also in favour of the respondent / plaintiff and against the appellants / D1 and D2 and accordingly, this Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts below, this Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.