JUDGMENT T. Mathivanan, J. 1. This memorandum of second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree, dated 6.2.2001 and made in A.S. No. 5 of 1998 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur allowing the appeal partly and decreeing the suit in part in respect of the relief of permanent injunction. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit in O.S. No. 511 of 1989 whereas the respondent is the plaintiff. 2. During the course of pendency of the second appeal, the fourth defendant had passed away and therefore, the appellants 5 to 8 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased fourth defendant vide order of this Court, dated 8.9.2011 and made in C.M.P. No. 738 of 2011. 3. The crucial question involved in this appeal is:-- "Whether the relief of injunction can be granted against the true owner?" 4. To the above question, the answer propelled or projected on behalf of the appellants is that no injunction can be granted against a true owner. 5. For easy reference and also for the sake of convenience, the respondent herein may hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff, whereas the appellants be referred to as the defendants, wherever the context so require. 6. The material facts are thus:-- "a. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property from one Raghava Reddi under a registered sale deed, dated 29.8.1986. After her purchase she continues to be in possession of the land. She has been paying necessary costs and taxes to the Government. The defendants have no manner of right or interest over the suit property. b. Under these circumstances, from 15.7.1989 onwards, the defendants have been threatening to cut and remove the plants. When they cut a small trees from the suit land, the plaintiff raised her objection. However, they have been continuously threatening the plaintiff to dispossess her and cause damage to the small plants. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction." 7. On the other hand, the defendants 1 to 4 have contested the suit by filing their written statement wherein they have contended that the fourth defendant had purchased the suit property from one Raghava Reddy. He had also paid the difference amount of Rs. 3,552/- towards deficit stamp duty and got an endorsement on the document. 8. On the other hand, the defendants 1 to 4 have contested the suit by filing their written statement wherein they have contended that the fourth defendant had purchased the suit property from one Raghava Reddy. He had also paid the difference amount of Rs. 3,552/- towards deficit stamp duty and got an endorsement on the document. 8. The plaintiff had also acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 4,440/-. From the date of purchase, the fourth defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as he being the absolute owner thereof. 9. The other defendants are the brothers of fourth defendant. They have been assisting and helping the fourth defendant in managing the suit property. They have contended that the plaintiff has got interest over the suit property and that she has not been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, they have urged to dismiss the suit. 10. Based on the pleadings of the parties to the suit, the trial court had formulated four issues for the better adjudication of the suit. 11. During the course of trial, the plaintiff had examined herself as R.W. 1 and she had also examined three witnesses on her part. During the course of their examination Ex. A1 to A9 were marked. On the other hand, the fourth defendant was examined as D.W. 1 and two more witnesses were examined on his part. During the course of their examination, Exs. B1 to B5 were marked. 12. On evaluating the evidences both oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge had proceeded to dismiss the suit with costs on the ground that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration as well as perpetual injunction. 13. Having been aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 28.11.1997, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 5 of 1998 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur. 14. After hearing both sides, the first appellate Judge had found that the defendants have got better title over the suit property than that of the plaintiff and therefore, in so far as the relief of declaration is concerned, the suit was dismissed, whereas the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, the first appellate Judge had found that as the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property, the relief of perpetual injunction was granted. Accordingly, the judgment and decree of the trial court was partly set aside and the appeal was also partly allowed. 15. Challenging the judgment of the first appellate court, dated 6.2.2001, the defendants stand before this Court with this second appeal. 16. This second appeal came to be admitted on the following single substantial question of law: "Whether the first appellate court was right in granting a decree for permanent injunction after having found that the title is in favour of the defendant and whether injunction can be granted against the true and lawful owner." 17. Heard Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. T.K. Viswanathan, who is on record for the appellants and Mr. R.S. Jeevarathinam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 18. Admittedly, the title to the suit property has been found in favour of the defendants. Therefore, it is asserted that the fourth defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property based on the registered sale deed, dated 8.1.1986. 19. Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel has argued that mere revenue records could not be based to ascertain the possession as the fourth defendant was found to be the absolute owner of the suit property. 20. He has also submitted that it is settled proposition of law that no injunction can be granted against a true owner. He has also maintained that when the fourth defendant was found to be the absolute owner of the suit property, the relief of injunction ought not to have been granted in favour of the plaintiff by the lower appellate court and in this aspect, the lower appellate court has committed a serious error and therefore, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are liable to be set aside. 21. In support of his submission, he has also placed reliance upon the following two decisions: "a. Veluran @ Muthusamy Gounder (deceased) and Others v. Perumal Gounder 2011-3-L.W.-890 : LNIND 2011 BMM 457." 22. In this case, the learned Single Judge of this Court has made reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Premji Ratansey Shah and Others v. Union of India and Others JT (1994) V.S.C. 585 : 1994-2-L.W.-735 : (1994) 5 SCC 547 : LNIND 1994 SC 651, wherein their Lordships have observed as under: "It is equally settled law that injunction would not be issued against the true owner. Therefore, the courts below have rightly rejected the relief of declaration and injunction in favour of the petitioners who have no interest in the property. Even assuming that they had any possession, their possession is wholly unlawful possession of a trespasser and an injunction cannot be issued in favour of a trespasser or a person who gained unlawful possession, as against the owner. Pretext of dispute of identity of the land should not be an excuse of claim injunction against true owner." 23. In an another decision in Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead) through L.Rs. and Others v. K.V.P. Shastri (Dead) 2014 AIAR (Civil) 130 : LNIND 2013 SC 1054, while speaking on behalf of three Judges Bench of the Apex Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda, in paragraph No. 24 of the Judgment, has observed that the general rule is that High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is not absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised exceptions are where- "a. The Courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence. b. The courts below have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or c. The courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof." 24. In the light of the above observations, it is thus made clear that the High Court can interfere with the findings of the courts below when they have ignored the material evidence or acted on no evidence and equally when they have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously. 25. In so far as this case is concerned, the lower appellate court had agreed with the finding of the trial court with regard to the file of the fourth defendant over the suit property. But in so far as the enjoyment of the property is concerned, it had wrongly found as if the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property. 26. As observed in the decision, cited first supra, when the fourth defendant is found to be the original owner of the property even though the possession is found to be with the plaintiff, it is absolutely an unlawful possession and therefore, as argued by Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel, no injunction could be granted against a true owner. 27. As observed in the decision, cited first supra, when the fourth defendant is found to be the original owner of the property even though the possession is found to be with the plaintiff, it is absolutely an unlawful possession and therefore, as argued by Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel, no injunction could be granted against a true owner. 27. In an another decision in Vishnubhotla Venkata Somayajulu v. Sista Satyanarayana and Others 1927 XXV L.W. 608 : LNIND 1926 MAD 488, the learned Single Judge of this Court, with regard to the presumption of possession follows title, has observed that the presumption about possession following title is not one which the Court is bound to draw in all cases of conflict of evidence or in cases where the evidence on both side is unsatisfactory. This presumption is drawn only in cases where the Court is unable to make up its mind one way or the other on account of the conflicting evidence in the case or in cases where effective possession is not possible of proof as in the case of an open site, jungle or forest or extensive waste land. 28. On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Jeevarathinam, learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that both the courts below have categorically admitted that the plaintiff is in continuous possession and also found that the defendants have failed to prove that they are in possession of the suit property. 29. He has further argued that the remedy available for the appellants is only to file a suit for recovery of possession and they are not entitled to seek any relief in the present suit. 30. He has also maintained that both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court had failed to take the evidence in its entirety in respect of the version that the vendor cancelled the sale deed in favour of the fourth defendant on the ground of cheating and non payment as he was requested only to sign as a witness in the alleged sale deed and the reasons stated for the cancellation of the sale deed were not considered by the courts below. 31. 31. This portion of argument is not able to be countenanced because the plaintiff has claimed absolute title over the suit property and therefore, she has prayed for declaration to declare her title over the suit property but the prayer portion in respect of declaration was rejected by the trial court and the same was confirmed by the first appellate court. Even the relief of injunction was also rejected by the trial court. But unfortunately, without proper appreciation of evidence, the appellate court had wrongly granted the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 32. As has been observed by this Court in the opening paragraph no injunction could be granted against a true owner. This is the judicial proverb and the settled proposition of law. When such being the case, the plaintiff has not chosen to file any cross objection with regard to the rejection of the suit in respect of the title. Having regard to the related facts and circumstances and the failure on the part of the plaintiff to file any cross objection as against the rejection of the prayer of declaration, there is no other go for this Court excepting to allow the second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court is set aside. The judgment and decree of the trial court is restored. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed