JUDGMENT P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J. 1. The plaintiffs in the original suit O.S. No. 53 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Rasipuram are the appellants in the second appeal. They had filed the above said suit against the respondent herein for a permanent injunction restraining him or any person acting on behalf of or claiming through the respondent herein, from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by providing any hindrance to such possession or by trespassing into the suit property and also for costs. 2. The suit was resisted by the respondent herein contending that the plaintiffs, by filing the present suit had made an attempt to stake claim to a part of a property which was lost by their father in an earlier suit viz. O.S. No. 58 of 1979 decided by the very same court and contending further that the suit property of the present suit was nothing but a part of the property that was the subject matter of the above said former suit. 3. The appellants/plaintiffs, on the other hand, have contended that the earlier suit was filed by their father in respect of an extent of 14 cents of land in which the over head tank belonging to the respondent panchayat is located and that the said property abuts Oduvankurichi road whereas the present suit property is 4725 sq. ft. (1750+1800+1175) of land which is lying on the east of the property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit. 4. The learned trial Judge conducted trial in which three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and six documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A6. Four more documents that were produced by witness summoned by the appellants/plaintiffs viz., P.W.3 on the side of the appellants herein/plaintiffs were marked as Exs.X1 to X4. One witness was examined as D.W.1 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B7 on the side of the respondent herein/defendant. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge accepted the contentions of the appellants herein/plaintiffs that the suit property regarding which the present suit had been filed had nothing to do with the property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit filed by the father of the appellants herein. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge accepted the contentions of the appellants herein/plaintiffs that the suit property regarding which the present suit had been filed had nothing to do with the property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit filed by the father of the appellants herein. It also held that the suit property lies on the east of the property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit and that the appellants/plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Based on the above said findings, the learned trial Judge held that the appellants/plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for by the appellants/plaintiffs in the plaint. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit and granted the relief of permanent injunction with cost. 5. The said decree of the trial court dated 20.08.2001 came to be challenged by the respondent herein before the lower Appellate Judge viz. Sub Judge, Namakkal in A.S. No. 165 of 2001. The learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal (Lower Appellate Judge) after hearing, allowed the appeal with costs, set aside the decree dated 20.08.2001 passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court came to be passed on 31.08.2005. Aggrieved by and challenging the decree of the lower appellate court dated 31.08.2005, the present second appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal. 6. Though several grounds have been raised in the grounds of second appeal, Section 100 of CPC Permits an appeal being preferred against the appellate decree of a court subordinate to the High Court only on a substantial question or substantial questions of law. Sub Clause (3) of Section 100 CPC contemplates that the memorandum of appeal shall precisely set the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. Sub Clause (4) of Section 100 CPC deals with the procedure to be followed by the High Court at the time of admission. It says where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case it shall formulate that question. It must be borne in mind that the substantial question of law to be formulated under the said sub clause need not be the same referred to in sub clause (3). It says where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case it shall formulate that question. It must be borne in mind that the substantial question of law to be formulated under the said sub clause need not be the same referred to in sub clause (3). Sub Clause (5) of Section 100 says that after such formulation, the appeal shall be heard on the question thus formulated as substantial question of law and that the respondent at such hearing shall be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such a substantial question of law. However, the proviso keeps in tact the power of the court to hear the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated at the time of admission, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question, provided reasons for the same are recorded. 7. In Compliance with the sub clause (4) of Section 100 CPC the following substantial questions were formulated at the time of admission as substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal:- (1) Was the court below erred in holding that in view of the findings in O.S. No. 58 of 1979 filed by the appellant's father, the present suit filed by the appellants is barred by principle of res judicata under section 11 CPC? (2) Whether the issue of res judicata is relevant for the purpose of present suit, especially when, in this case, the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed for the relief of permanent injunction on this strength of the possession over the suit property on the date of the suit? 8. The arguments advanced by Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel for the appellants and the arguments advanced by Mr. G. Sankaran, learned counsel for the respondent were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. For the sake of convenience and for clarity, the parties are referred to in accordance with their ranks in the original suit and at appropriate places, their ranks in the second appeal also will be indicated. 9. G. Sankaran, learned counsel for the respondent were heard. The materials available on record were also perused. For the sake of convenience and for clarity, the parties are referred to in accordance with their ranks in the original suit and at appropriate places, their ranks in the second appeal also will be indicated. 9. The plaintiffs, who emerged successful in the original suit before the trial court, failed to sustain the decree passed by the trial court before the lower appellate court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial court, with the result that the suit filed by the plaintiff came to be dismissed. Hence, they are before this court in this second appeal. 10. Before dealing with the questions formulated as substantial questions of law, it shall be helpful to state the facts leading to the dispute in brief, for clear understanding of the case. In seerapalli village, on the east of the north south main road called Oduvankurichi main road, S. No. 234/52 lies. In respect of the said property measuring approximately 14 cents, Subramaniam Mudaliyar, the father of the appellants filed a suit on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal in O.S. No. 373 of 1975 claiming that the same belonged to him and praying for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondent herein not to trespass into the said property and put up any construction thereon. It was contended by the respondent that the said land measuring 14 cents abutting the northsouth Oduvankurichi main road on its east was a natham poramboke stood vested with the panchayat and that the same was in the possession and enjoyment of the respondent panchayat. It was also contended therein that the father of the appellant herein, who was the plaintiff in the former suit, was having a land which situated on the east of 14 cents of land shown to be the suit property in the above said former suit. 11. The said suit was, thereafter, transferred to the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram on question of jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S. No. 58 of 1979. 11. The said suit was, thereafter, transferred to the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram on question of jurisdiction and renumbered as O.S. No. 58 of 1979. After trial, the learned District Munsif, Rasipuram, by judgment and decree dated 19.03.1984, dismissed the said suit for permanent injunction filed by the father of the appellant herein with cost holding that the father of the appellant herein was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for by him, based on his finding that the 14 cents of land abutting Oduvankurichi main road belonged to the respondent panchayat. After the dismissal of the said suit filed by the father of the appellants herein, there was no problem for about 16 years till 2000. Meanwhile, Subramaniam Mudaliar, the father of the appellants herein passed away. Subsequently, contending that even regarding the property situated on the east of the property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit filed by their father, the respondent's men were trying to encroach upon and cause disturbance to the possession and enjoyment of the appellants, they filed the suit O.S. No. 53 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram for permanent injunction. The portion on the east of the property held to be the one belonging to the respondent panchayat in the earlier proceedings has been shown to be the present suit property and the same is shown in three parts measuring 1750 sq. ft., 1800 sq. ft. and 1175 sq. ft. respectively. The said property is said to be lying in between the land in which panchayat over head tank has been put up viz. the land which was the subject matter of the earlier suit and the north-south streets which lies on the east of the present suit property. The southern most part measuring 1750 sq. ft. is claimed to be in the possession and enjoyment of the first plaintiff Meenakshi Sundaram, the middle portion measuring 1800 sq. ft. is said to be in the possession and enjoyment of Mahalingam, the second plaintiff and the northern most portion measuring an extent of 1175 sq. ft. is claimed to be in the possession and enjoyment of Rajamanickam, the third plaintiff. ft. is said to be in the possession and enjoyment of Mahalingam, the second plaintiff and the northern most portion measuring an extent of 1175 sq. ft. is claimed to be in the possession and enjoyment of Rajamanickam, the third plaintiff. As the interest of all the three plaintiffs as against the respondent are common, they have chosen to jointly file the above said suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant panchayat not to encroach upon any portion of the suit property or cause any interference with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 12. The defendant panchayat took a stand that the present suit property was none other than a portion of the property regarding which the earlier suit had been filed by the father of the plaintiffs and that hence they were not entitled to any relief in the present suit as the principle of res judicata would bar the trial of the present suit under section 11 of CPC. The learned trial Judge, after dealing with the description of the properties provided in the former suit and the present suit and also the evidence adduced by the witnesses in the former suit as well as the present suit, especially, the admission made by the defendant panchayat in the former suit to the effect that the property of the father of the plaintiffs lies on the east of 14 cents of land claimed to be the land belonging to the panchayat and also the evidence proving the existence of a tiled house in the present suit property, rendered a finding that the present suit property is different from the property regarding which the former suit came to be filed by the father of the plaintiffs and that the dismissal of the earlier suit did not constitute res judicata for the present suit, as the subject matters of the suits were altogether different. It was also found by the learned trial Judge that the subject matter of the earlier suit in which the panchayat over head had been enclosed by the defendant by a compound wall and similarly the property that lies on the east of the land of the panchayat and on the west of north-south street had been enclosed by the plaintiffs by a compound wall and that the plaintiffs were able to prove their possession and enjoyment in respect of the present suit properties. As the plaintiffs' title and possession was disputed by the defendant panchayat, the learned trial Judge held that there was cause of action for the suit and ultimately decreed the suit as prayed for granting the relief of permanent injunction. 13. However, the learned lower appellate Judge, referring to the fact that the former suit filed by the father of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed, held that the suit property in the said suit was proved to be grama natham and that the father of the present plaintiffs, was not able to prove his title and possession. The learned lower appellate judge also differed from the finding of the trial court that the present suit property is different from the suit property of the former suit filed by the father of the appellants and held that the principle of res judicata got attracted to the present suit. Accordingly, the learned lower appellate Judge chose to allow the appeal and set aside the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. 14. In the background of the facts narrated above, let us now consider the questions formulated as substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal. Before taking up the first substantial question of law, the second substantial question of law may be considered. 14. In the background of the facts narrated above, let us now consider the questions formulated as substantial questions of law involved in the second appeal. Before taking up the first substantial question of law, the second substantial question of law may be considered. It has been formulated based on the contention of the plaintiffs that though the earlier suit for permanent injunction filed by their father could have been dismissed holding that the father of the plaintiffs did not have title and he was not able to prove his possession, the present suit has been filed based on a different cause of action, namely possession of the plaintiffs in the present suit; that therefore, the issue of res judicata is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present suit and that the present suit is to be disposed of based on the answer to the question whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction based on their alleged possession of the suit property. 15. Of course, when an earlier case in respect of a particular property was dismissed holding that the plaintiff therein was not able to prove his possession, a subsequent suit on the strength of the pleading that somehow or other the property came into his hands subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier suit and such possession should be protected as against the whole world except the true owner, then such a subsequent suit will not attract the bar of res judicata even though the former suit and later suit happened to be the suits in respect of one and the same property and between the very same parties. Similarly, in case, where a former suit for injunction was dismissed on the ground that any attempted interference was not proved and that the apprehension of disturbance was not established even though the possession was proved, then the dismissal of the former suit cannot constitute a res judicata for a subsequent suit based on a fresh cause of action which might have arisen subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier suit. However, if the earlier suit came to be dismissed on the ground that permanent injunction had been sought for against the true owner and the defendant therein was the true owner, the same would, no doubt, attract the principle of res judicata unless the claim in the subsequent suit is made based on perfection of title by adverse possession after the dismissal of the earlier suit, in which event, the subsequent claim can be taken as a claim based on derivation of title by adverse possession, which happened subsequent to the disposal of the earlier suit. 16. In this case, therefore, the second appeal cannot be resolved by a straight jacket answer to the issue of res judicata. It depends upon the nature of the claim made by the parties in the former suit and the subsequent suit and also the causes of action based on which the suits came to be filed. The inability to give a straight answer either in the affirmative or in the negative regarding the second substantial question of law, need not deter us from proceeding with the consideration of the first substantial question of law, which alone is the actual substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal. The above said observations regarding the second substantial question of law shall be enough and no more elaboration of the same is necessary. 17. The main controversy is whether the present suit property is part and parcel of the property regarding which the former suit O.S. No. 58 of 1979 was filed by the father of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the subject matter of the above said former suit lies on the west of the present suit property and the present suit property does not include any portion of the property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit. On the other hand, it is the claim of the defendant that the entire property now claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the present suit is nothing but a portion of the property regarding which the former suit O.S. No. 58 of 1979 was filed by their father on the file of the District Munsif Court, Rasipuram. 18. The property claimed to be that of the defendant, admittedly, abuts Oduvankurichi main road. 18. The property claimed to be that of the defendant, admittedly, abuts Oduvankurichi main road. The north-south Oduvankurichi main road lies on the west and the property of the defendant panchayat lies immediately on the east of Oduvankurichi main road. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs do have title to the present suit property having purchased the same under a sale deed in the name of the grandfather of the plaintiffs, a certified copy of which has been produced as Ex.A1. The former suit O.S. No. 58 of 1979 came to be filed by A.K. Subramania Mudaliar. The appellants herein/ plaintiffs in the later suit are the sons of the above said Subramania Mudaliar. The appellants herein/plaintiffs in the later suit did make their claim in respect of the suit property only on the basis of succession to the same from their father. The defendant in the former suit was the Panchayat Union of Sirapalli, represented by its Administrative Officer. The defendant in the present suit is the Executive Officer, Sirapalli Town Panchayat. Admittedly, after the disposal of the former suit (O.S. No. 58 of 1979) and prior to the filing of the present suit, the Sirapalli Panchayat was upgraded to a Town Panchayat. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the parties to the later suit, namely O.S. No. 53 of 2000 from which the present second appeal has arisen are parties claiming devolution of interest either by way of succession or by way of operation of law from the parties to the former suit O.S. No. 58 of 1979. The former suit was filed for the relief of permanent injunction by the father of the plaintiffs in the later suit against the predecessor in interest of Sirapalli Town Panchayat. As such, so far as the identity of the parties and the nature of reliefs sought for in both the suits are concerned, they attract the ingredients of the principle of res judicata enshrined in Section 11 of the CPC. 19. However, it is not enough to show that the parties in the former suit and the later suit are one and the same or that they are claiming under the same persons and the relief sought for are also one and the same. 19. However, it is not enough to show that the parties in the former suit and the later suit are one and the same or that they are claiming under the same persons and the relief sought for are also one and the same. It must be proved that the suit property (subject matter of the later suit) was also the subject matter of the former suit. Unless the identity of the subject matter of the former suit and the later suit is established and it is proved that the subject matter of the later suit is the subject matter of the former suit, Section 11 CPC dealing with the principle of res judicata shall not be attracted. 20. It is the contention of the appellants herein/plaintiffs that the former suit filed by their father was regarding a piece of land that lies on the west of the present suit properties and that the present suit does not include any portion of the property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit, namely O.S. No. 58 of 1979. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent/defendant that, while the former suit was filed for an entire extent of 14 cents held to be that of the Panchayat Union and hence the father of the appellants herein was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the said property, the present suit is an attempt to claim similar relief in respect of a portion forming the extra part of the subject matter of the former suit and that therefore, the principle of res judicata stands clearly attracted. 21. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that neither the copy of the plaint nor the copy of the written statement filed in the former suit came to be exhibited by the party claiming that the later suit is barred by the principle of res judicata; nor did the appellants herein/ plaintiffs produce the same to show that the property, which is the subject matter of the present suit, does not form part of the property, which was the subject matter of the former suit filed by their father. In fact, the appellants/plaintiffs did not file any document relating to the former suit. In fact, the appellants/plaintiffs did not file any document relating to the former suit. A certified copy of the decree passed in the former suit O.S. No. 58 of 1979 on the file of DMC, Rasipuram has been produced as Ex.B1. The description of property found therein is as follows:- “Tamil” From the description of the property found in the said decree, it is obvious that a property measuring east-west 40 cubit and north-south 50 cubit, which was described to be situated on the east of Car Street (Tamil) and west of the house property belonging to A.K. Subramania Mudaliar, the plaintiff therein (the father of the plaintiffs in the later suit) was the subject matter of the former suit. So far as the northern and southern boundaries are concerned, there is no dispute. For clear identification of the property claimed in the former suit, a rough plan had also been produced along with the plaint and the same was also referred to in the decree. But none of the parties to the present suit has chosen to produce a copy of the rough plan attached to the plaint in the former suit, for proper identification of the property regarding which relief of permanent injunction was sought for in the former suit. 22. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the judgment of DMC, Rasipuram dated 19.03.1984 pronounced in the said former suit, namely O.S. No. 58 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif, Rasipuram. A reading of the recital found in the said judgment narrating the plaint averments shows that the extent was not furnished in clear terms. On the other hand, even in the plaint averments, the rough sketch was referred to, to describe the property claimed to be that of the plaintiff therein (father of the plaintiffs in the later suit). Though the property, regarding which the former suit came to be filed, was shown in two parts designated with P and P1 in the rough plan, as it can be understood from the judgment, a plea to the effect that an extent of six cents described as “P” in the rough plan was encroached upon by the defendants therein and the portion which had been described as “P1” was also sought to be encroached upon by cutting and removing the trees standing thereon. The plaint did not contain details regarding the extent of the portion shown as “P” and extent of the portion shown as “P1” in the plan attached to the plaint in the former suit. It seems, in the former suit an extent of 10 cents immediately on the west of the present suit property had been held to be poramboke land. Though the plaintiff in the former suit chose to give the extent of poramboke land lying immediately on the west of the land claimed by him to be his, he had not given the correct extent of such property. 23. The respondent herein, who was the defendant in the former suit, took a stand in the written statement that a north-south of road runs abutting the suit property of the said former suit on its west and that on the immediate east of the north-south road called Oduvankurichi Road there was a poramboke land of 14 cents and the same was in the enjoyment of the defendant. Therefore, it is clear from the above said document Ex.B2, that in the former suit filed by the father of the appellants herein, the respondent herein took a stand that the respondent Town Panchayat was in possession and enjoyment of 14 cents of land abutting the north-south Oduvankurichi Road and lying on its east. As pointed out supra, even though the description of property as found in Ex.B1 shows that the house property of A.K. Subramania Mudaliar was shown as the eastern boundary of the subject matter of the former suit and it did not include the house property of Subramania Mudaliar, which was stated to be lying on the east of the property that was made the subject matter of the former suit, the learned District Munsif, Rasipuram, in the former suit, had referred to the Field Measurement Book and the judgment in another suit (O.S. No. 149 of 1979) wherein it had been held that an extent of 10 cents alone was owned by A.K. Subramania Mudaliar and that said 10 cents was lying on the east of the property described as the suit property in O.S. No. 58 of 1979. It was also found in the former suit that the vacant land in between the house of A.K. Subramania Mudaliar and Oduvankurichi Road measured 14 cents and that in respect of the said vacant land, the plaintiff in the former suit, namely the father of the appellants herein, could not succeed in their claim for permanent injunction on the basis of their alleged title and possession. The judgment was rendered on 19.03.1984. The claim of the father of the appellants herein came to be negatived in the former suit on the ground that though some extent of land in the grama natham land had been purchased by the grand father of the appellants herein under a sale deed dated 20.05.1992, the same would not have conferred title on him, since he had not obtained any patta in respect of that natham land. A thorough reading of the copies of the judgment and decree in the former suit produced as Exs.B1 and B2 and the description of the property furnished in the present suit gives rise to an inference that the property regarding which the present suit has been filed lies on the east of the property which was the subject matter of the former suit. However, the Commissioner's Report and the plan marked as Exs.C1 and C2 in the former suit have not been produced to show whether the properties were measured to enable this court to find out what was the actual extent of the vacant land, which situated on the west of the house of Subramania Mudaliar and on the east of Oduvankurichi Road. 24. Now, in the present suit also what the respondent/defendant contends is that the court had already rendered a decision in the former suit that 14 cents lying on the east of Oduvankurichi Road belong to the Town Panchayat and the appellants herein/plaintiffs are trying to claim more extent than what they are entitled to and thereby they claimed title and possession in respect of a portion of the property that has vested with the Town Panchayat and is in the possession and enjoyment of the Town Panchayat. It is an admitted fact that a vacant site in between the house of the father of the appellants herein and the Oduvankurichi Road was in the possession and enjoyment of the Town Panchayat and in a portion of the said property, the Town Panchayat had put up a overhead water tank. It is the claim of the respondent that the panchayat has resolved to construct the office building of the panchayat on the east of the land over which the overhead tank has been put up and that the land in which the office for the panchayat is sought to be constructed is part and parcel of the 14 cents of land belonging to the Town Panchayat. 25. On the contrary, the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs is that the panchayat having succeeded in the earlier suit by projecting that the vacant site in between the house of A.K. Subramania Mudaliar and Oduvankurichin Road was a grama natham poramboke under the control of the Town Panchayat, wanted to encroach upon a further extent on the east and the same alone is sought to be prevented by filing the present suit. As pointed out supra, the earlier suit was filed in respect of a vacant site lying on the west of the house belonging to A.K. Subramania Mudaliar. Now in the present suit the relief is sought for in respect of the property which is said to be lying on the east of the property concerned in the former suit. Since the defendant in the former suit had admitted that the property lying on the east of the subject matter of the former suit belonged to the father of the appellants and the court had also decided so in the former suit, it shall be obvious that the subject matter of the former suit and that of the present suit cannot be said to be one and the same and that they are different. There may be overlapping to some extent. This court refers to the overlapping, because the defendant claims an extent of 14 cents on the east of Oduvankurichi Road and contends that a portion of the said 14 cents of land is being claimed by the appellants/plaintiffs to be in their possession and the same belongs to them. 26. There may be overlapping to some extent. This court refers to the overlapping, because the defendant claims an extent of 14 cents on the east of Oduvankurichi Road and contends that a portion of the said 14 cents of land is being claimed by the appellants/plaintiffs to be in their possession and the same belongs to them. 26. In this regard Ex.A1 sale deed shows that a property measuring east-west 40 cubit and north-south 50 cubit along with the thatched house measuring 3 anganam was purchased by the grandfather of the appellants herein/plaintiffs. The western boundary of the said property was shown as car street (Tamil). The eastern boundary of the suit property is shown to be the house of one Athi Mudali, who was the father of the purchaser therein. Only in respect of the property which was sold under the said document, a finding was rendered by the court below in the former suit that the said document had not conferred any title to the purchaser there under, from whom Subramania Mudaliar claimed to have derived title by way of succession. 27. However, after the disposal of the former suit, natham survey came to be conducted in which natham land, which was comprised in old Survey No. 194/1 was assigned Re-survey No. 234 with several sub divisions. The appellants herein were given house site patta for Re-survey No. 234/167 classified as natham manai with an extent of 392.5 sq. mtr. While describing them, their father’s name was wrongly noted as Subbaraya Mudaliar instead of Subramania Mudaliar. Hence on a representation made by them, the Deputy Tahsildar, Rasipuram passed an order under Ex.A3 for correcting the father’s name of the appellants as Subramania Mudaliar instead of Subbaraya Mudaliar. On the backside of Ex.A2 house site patta, field map is found. From the same, it is obvious that on the north of S. No. 234/167 (in respect of which patta had been issued in favour of the appellants) Survey No. 234/52 lies. After the filing of the present suit, the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat seems to have sent a representation to the District Collector for the cancellation of patta issued in respect of R.S. No. 234/167. The same has been produced as Ex.B3. Postal acknowledgement for service of the same on the Collector is Ex.B4. After the filing of the present suit, the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat seems to have sent a representation to the District Collector for the cancellation of patta issued in respect of R.S. No. 234/167. The same has been produced as Ex.B3. Postal acknowledgement for service of the same on the Collector is Ex.B4. Certified copy of Chitta relating to Survey No. 234/167 has been produced as Ex.X1. Adangal extract has been produced as Ex.X2. They are in the name of the appellants. Adangal extract of Survey No. 234/52 has been produced as Ex.X3. It is shown as vacant site and classified as poramboke land. Ex.X4 is the field map showing the entire survey No. 234. From the same, it is found that sub division No. 52 lies on the west and Sub division No. 167 lies on the east of sub division No. 52. Sub division No. 168 is the land lying on the South of both Sub Division No. 52 and 167. Sub division No. 51 is another lane running on north-south on the east of sub-division No. 167. Admittedly on the west of survey No. 52 runs the north-south Oduvankurichi road. As per the natham survey and the patta issued, the appellants/plaintiffs and their brother were issued joint patta in respect of 392.5 sq. mtrs. in S. No. 234/167. The extent regarding which patta had been issued is 392.5 sq. mts. which will come to 9.71 cents. However the appellants/ plaintiffs have chosen to claim a total extent of 4925 sq. ft. to be in their possession and enjoyment. They have made the said claim on the basis of Ex.A4-partition Deed, which came into existence just prior to the filing of the suit. The said partition deed came to be effected between A.K. Subramania Mudaliar and his five sons. A.K. Subramania Mudaliar and two of his sons by names Arumugam and Palanisamy got Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively from the family fund in lieu of their shares in the property. The other three, who are the appellants herein, got 1950 sq. ft. 1800 sq. ft. and 1175 sq. ft. respectively. If the total extent is taken into account it would be more than the extent for which the patta had been issued. 10,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively from the family fund in lieu of their shares in the property. The other three, who are the appellants herein, got 1950 sq. ft. 1800 sq. ft. and 1175 sq. ft. respectively. If the total extent is taken into account it would be more than the extent for which the patta had been issued. The said document seems to have been brought into existence for the purpose of making a claim in respect of more extent than what they are entitled as per the patta issued. 28. The appellants herein/plaintiffs seem to have filed a rough plan along with their plaint in the present suit, without showing the measurements or existence of the properties respectively in the control of the Town Panchayat and in the possession of the appellant herein/plaintiffs. The rough sketch has been drawn in such a way to show that the extent of the unassigned land, which is in possession of the Town Panchayat is half in size than the property claimed by the appellants herein/plaintiffs. This shall be quite incorrect as it would be seen from Ex.X1 and X2, which show that patta was granted to the appellants in respect of Survey No.234/167 having an extent of 392.5 sq. mtrs. which is equivalent to 4225 sq. ft. But they have made a claim in respect of 4925 sq. ft. Similarly, as per Ex.X3, S. No. 234/52 abutting the Oduvankurichi Main Road is shown to be an unassigned poramboke (vacant site) land and its extent is shown as 393.0 sq. mtrs. which is equivalent to 9.7 cents, but the respondent Panchayat claims that it is entitled to and is in possession and enjoyment of 14 cents. It is a well established principle that natham land does not vest with the government or the local body automatically. In respect of occupied natham lands patta could have been granted to the occupiers. In respect of unoccupied vacant natham land, the government shall be the custodian of the same for being assigned as house site etc. 29. In this case, though S. No. 234/52 measuring 393.0 sq. mtrs. that has been classified as natham poramboke vacant site, has not been assigned or handed over to the local body. The same has been admitted by the sole witness examined on the side of the respondent/defendant. 29. In this case, though S. No. 234/52 measuring 393.0 sq. mtrs. that has been classified as natham poramboke vacant site, has not been assigned or handed over to the local body. The same has been admitted by the sole witness examined on the side of the respondent/defendant. While so, this court wonders how the respondent/defendant claims that the respondent Town Panchayat is entitled to 14 cents of vacant site abutting Oduvankurichi Main Road. Admittedly in a portion of S. No. 234/52, the panchayat overhead water tank has been constructed. There is no clear evidence as to what is the excess vacant land available for the panchayat within that sub division. Therefore, it would not be safe to simply arrive at a conclusion that the appellants shall be entitled to the relief of injunction in respect of the property comprised in S. No. 234/167, which is lying on the east of S. No. 234/52 without specifying the measurements. Here again, even in respect of S. No. 234/167 the title of the appellants/plaintiffs is in dispute. The respondent/defendant has claimed that S. No. 234/167 is none other than a portion of the 14 cents of Poramboke land in the possession and enjoyment of the Town Panchayat. They have also submitted representation to the Collector for cancellation of the patta issued to the appellants/plaintiffs. The appellants/plaintiffs are very much aware of the fact that the title also is in dispute. However, they have chosen to file the suit as a suit for bare injunction valuing the relief under Section 27(c) of the Tamil Nadu Suits and Court Fees Valuation Act, 1955. Though there is no bar for entertaining a suit for bare injunction, whenever the plaint averment reveals the existence of a dispute regarding the title claimed by the plaintiffs, the suit should have been valued and the court fee should have been paid under Section 27(a). 30. In this case, by a clever drafting, the appellants/plaintiffs seem to have laid the suit for simple injunction and thereby avoided payment of court fee under Section 27(a) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955. Even if it is assumed that the valuation and the court fee paid on the plaint are correct, the question of title has to be gone into. Even if it is assumed that the valuation and the court fee paid on the plaint are correct, the question of title has to be gone into. In a suit for bare injunction, when the issue is not simple and it involves a complicated question not suitable for rendering a decision in a trial of summary nature, then it shall be prudent for the court to relegate the parties to a more comprehensive suit for declaration and other reliefs. A clue in this regard can be had from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & Others, 2008 (6) CTC 237. While coming to a conclusion that the suit involves a question of title also, which cannot be conveniently decided in a summary manner, it shall be in the interest of justice to dismiss the suit giving liberty to the appellants/plaintiffs to seek more comprehensive remedy of declaration and other reliefs like injunction etc. 31. In this case, as pointed out supra, there is a dispute regarding the title to the property comprised in S. No. 234/167. There is also an apparent dispute regarding the extent of land comprised in the said survey number. Similarly, there is a dispute regarding the extent of land under the control of the respondent Town Panchayat, namely S. No. 234/52, which lies on the east-west of S. No. 234/167. All these aspects can be considered only if a suit for declaration for fixing the boundary is filed. It shall be obvious that the suit property in the former suit and the suit property in the present suit cannot be said to be one and the same. Though the parties are one and the same, the former suit came to be dismissed on the ground that the father of the appellants was not granted patta in respect of the natham land. A change of circumstances has taken place as natham survey was made subsequent to the disposal of the former suit in which the appellants were granted patta in respect of S. No. 234/167. A change of circumstances has taken place as natham survey was made subsequent to the disposal of the former suit in which the appellants were granted patta in respect of S. No. 234/167. Even though the plaintiffs in the present suit are the persons who derive title through the plaintiff in the former suit, in view of the change in the circumstances, namely the grant of patta in the plaintiffs name in respect of the suit property, this court holds that the present suit is not barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC. The first substantial question of law is answered accordingly in favour of the appellants holding that the suit is not barred by res judicata. 32. The foregoing discussions will also show that the present suit filed by the appellants for permanent injunction on the strength of their possession on the date of filing of the suit is not affected by the principle of res judicata since the present suit has been filed on change in the circumstances and also based on the contention that the subject matter of the present suit is different from the subject matter of the former suit. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law is also liable to be answered in favour of the appellants. 33. There is no clear evidence as to the extent of the property owned by the respondent Town Panchayat and the property claimed to be in the hands of the appellants/plaintiffs. In addition, the title to the property is also under challenge. The respondent Town Panchayat has also given a representation to the District Collector for cancellation of the patta issued to the appellants. Though the question of title can be gone into incidentally in a suit for permanent injunction when the court is of the view that the question of title is so complicated unsuitable for resolution in a suit of summary nature, the plaintiffs have to be relegated to a more comprehensive suit for declaration and consequential reliefs or for fixation of the boundaries of the properties owned by the rival parties. In the case on hand, the foregoing discussions will make it clear that the question of title is so complicated which is unsuitable for resolution in a suit for bare injunction for which the trial shall be of a summary nature. In the case on hand, the foregoing discussions will make it clear that the question of title is so complicated which is unsuitable for resolution in a suit for bare injunction for which the trial shall be of a summary nature. Hence this court comes to the conclusion that the decree of the appellate court dismissing the suit simpliciter without granting permission to the appellants herein/plaintiffs to go for a more comprehensive suit of declaration and other reliefs deserves to be modified by setting aside the decree of the trial court granted in favour of the appellants herein/plaintiffs and dismiss the original suit O.S. No. 53 of 2000 with liberty to the appellants herein/plaintiffs to file a more comprehensive suit for declaration of title and other reliefs including fixation of boundary, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in Anathula Sudhakar's case cited supra. In the result, the second appeal is allowed in part. The judgment of the lower appellate court dated 31.08.2005 made in A.S. No. 165 of 2001 is modified by setting aside the decree granted by the trial court and dismissing the original suit O.S. No. 53 of 2000, with liberty to the plaintiffs therein to file a more comprehensive suit for declaration of title and other reliefs including fixation of boundaries. There shall be no order as to cost in the second appeal. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2012 is closed.