JUDGMENT The unsuccessful plaintiff before the courts below is the appellant in this second appeal. The Plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No. 81 of 2004 for bare injunction to restrain the defendants/respondents herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 2. According to the plaintiff, in the plaint, the first defendant was the owner of the suit property having purchased the same out of her own funds on 01.05.1972. From the said date, the first defendant became owner of the suit property exclusively. The second defendant is the husband of the first defendant. The third defendant is the son of the first defendant. The plaintiff is the son-in-law of the defendants 1 and 2. While so, in order to settle the loan availed by the first defendant with Tindivanam Urban Bank to meet the marriage expenditure of her daughter, the first defendant intended to sell the suit property. The Plaintiff, after deliberations, has purchased the suit property by means of a registered sale deed dated 06.03.2003 executed by the first defendant for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. In the said sale deed, the daughter of the first defendant, who was examined as PW2, also attested as witness. According to the plaintiff, PW2 is a lawyer besides she is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff and it is not as though she has attested the sale deed without any knowledge. From the date of such sale, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as an exclusive owner. The plaintiff also let out a portion of the suit property to the tenant and is in receipt of rental income. While so, the third defendant has filed a suit in O.S. No. 41 of 2003 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam contending that the first defendant has no exclusive saleable right over the suit property and that the sons and daughters of the first defendant are entitled for a share in the suit property. Therefore, the third defendant has filed the suit claiming 1/4 share in the suit property. On the basis of pendency of the suit in O.S. No. 41 of 2003, it was claimed by the third defendant that the sale made in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled by means of a cancellation deed dated 18.07.2003 and that the plaintiff has no right over the suit property. On the basis of pendency of the suit in O.S. No. 41 of 2003, it was claimed by the third defendant that the sale made in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled by means of a cancellation deed dated 18.07.2003 and that the plaintiff has no right over the suit property. The third defendant also attempted to interfere with the suit property enjoyed by the plaintiff and it was resisted by him successfully with the help of his neighbours. In those circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the present suit in O.S. No. 81 of 2004 for the relief of bare injunction. 3. The suit was resisted by the first defendant by filing a written statement. In the written statement, it was claimed by the first defendant that the sale deed dated 06.03.2003 was executed by her in favour of the plaintiff out of threat, coercion and intimidation. The sale deed was not executed voluntarily but she was forced to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. There was no sale consideration received by the first defendant pursuant to execution of the sale deed dated 06.03.2003. For the purpose of execution of the sale deed dated 06.03.2003, the plaintiff forcifully obtained the thumb impression of the first defendant in blank papers. Thereafter, the first defendant was taken to Madras and she was confined in the house of the plaintiff for some time. However, the first defendant escaped from the clutches of the plaintiff and came back to Tindivanam. After reaching Tindivanam, she has given a complaint to the Sub-Registrar seeking to cancel the sale deed dated 06.03.2003 executed in favour of the plaintiff. In those circumstances, the sale deed dated 06.03.2003 executed in favour of the plaintiff was duly cancelled by the first defendant by executing a deed of cancellation dated 18.07.2003. Therefore, by virtue of the deed of cancellation dated 18.07.2003, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest to deal with the suit property. It was also contended that the suit property does not belong to her exclusively and that her children also has got a right over the same. Further, possession of the suit property was never delivered to the plaintiff and therefore, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable under law. The defendants are residing in the suit property jointly as a joint Hindu undivided family. Further, possession of the suit property was never delivered to the plaintiff and therefore, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable under law. The defendants are residing in the suit property jointly as a joint Hindu undivided family. The joint family is headed by the second defendant as Kartha. The second defendant alone has purchased the suit property from and out of the income derived by him by running a hotel business. Even though the suit property was purchased by the second defendant, out of his own funds, it was purchased in the name of the first defendant. The first defendant has no wherewithal to purchase the suit property. The first defendant has no independent source of income to purchase the suit property. Even the plaintiff has no wherewithal to purchase the suit property by paying Rs.8,00,000/- as sale consideration. The Plaintiff has unauthorisedly occupied the suit property by threat and coercion. The Plaintiff, without filing a suit for declaration to get his right, if any, declared, has filed the present suit for bare injunction which is not maintainable under law. The first defendant therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit property. 4. Before the trial court, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and another witness as PW2, besides marking Exs. A1 to A9. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendants examined herself as DW1, besides two other witnesses as DWs 2 to 4 and Exs. B1 to B26 were marked. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence let in by both sides, the trial court pointed out that the sale deed dated 06.03.2003, Ex.A2 was not executed by the first defendant voluntarily and it was made to be executed by her by threat and coercion by the plaintiff. It was further held that the plaintiff had made use of the thumb impression of the first defendant obtained in blank papers for the purpose of creating the sale deed, Ex.A2. The plaintiff has not proved the passing of sale consideration in a manner known to law. The Plaintiff also did not produce the bank pass book evidencing the payment towards the sale consideration. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court to dismiss the suit was also affirmed by the first appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. 5. The Plaintiff also did not produce the bank pass book evidencing the payment towards the sale consideration. Therefore, the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The conclusion arrived at by the trial court to dismiss the suit was also affirmed by the first appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff would contend that the sale deed dated 06.03.2003, Ex.A2, was duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar concerned. While so, such sale deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the first defendant by simply executing a deed of cancellation dated 18.07.2003. The first defendant has not filed any independent suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 06.03.2003, Ex.A2, rather, she cancelled the sale deed dated 06.03.2003 on her own, which is legally impermissible. Both the courts below, without any documentary evidence has concluded that the first defendant is a benamidar of the defendants 2 and 3. The courts below also, without any legally acceptable evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff resorted to fraud in getting the sale deed executed in his favour. When the defendants have not raised their little finger to complain the alleged conduct of the plaintiff in obtaining the thumb impression of the first defendant in blank papers or they have taken any steps to cancel the sale deed in a manner known to law, the deed of cancellation, Ex.B1 dated 18.07.2003, will not bind the plaintiff in any manner. Further, the suit filed by the third defendant in O.S. No. 41 of 2003 can no longer be looked into inasmuch as it was subsequently withdrawn by the third defendant himself. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has also brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of second appeal, the plaintiff has filed WP No. 19274 of 2009 before this Court praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the deed of cancellation dated 18.07.2003 executed by the first defendant and to direct the third respondent therein, who is the first defendant in the present suit, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 19.09.2010 holding that the unilateral execution of the deed of cancellation dated 18.07.2003 is bad in law. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 19.09.2010 holding that the unilateral execution of the deed of cancellation dated 18.07.2003 is bad in law. Therefore, it is submitted that by virtue of the order dated 19.09.2010 passed in WP No. 19274 of 2009, Ex.B1 lost it's credece and on that ground also, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/ appellant prayed for allowing this second appeal. 7. On the contrary, the learned senior counsel for the defendants/ respondents would support the decree and judgment passed by the courts below by contending that the first defendant, as DW1, has categorically deposed that her thumb impression were obtained in the house in blank papers and they were made use to create the sale deed dated 06.03.2003, Ex.A2. In fact, the third defendant, claiming the suit property to be a joint family property, has filed a suit in O.S. No. 41 of 2003 for partition which would go to show that the first defendant has no independent right, interest or title, much less saleable interest over the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The sale deed dated 06.03.2003 was also cancelled within a short time on 18.07.2003 which would only go to show that the sale deed, Ex.A2 was not executed by the first defendant voluntarily. Further, as pointed out by both the courts below, the plaintiff has filed a simple suit for bare injunction and if he is really aggrieved, he ought to have filed a comprehensive suit for declaration to declare the cancellation deed dated 18.07.2003 as null and void. In this context, the learned senior counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (N. Kaliamoorthy and others vs. Vairavan Chettiar) 2014 (5) CTC 801 for the proposition that when the first defendant denied the title of the plaintiff, it is proper for him to file a suit for declaration and the present suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. In the absence of filing such a suit, the relief sought for by the plaintiff in the present suit cannot be granted. Both the courts below have carefully appreciated the pleadings, evidence and issues framed in the suit to reject the claim of the plaintiff. Such a well considered decree and judgment passed by the courts below needs no interference by this Court. Both the courts below have carefully appreciated the pleadings, evidence and issues framed in the suit to reject the claim of the plaintiff. Such a well considered decree and judgment passed by the courts below needs no interference by this Court. The learned senior counsel for the defendants therefore prayed for dismissal of the second appeal. 8. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned senior counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence made available. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed for consideration and they are:- (i) Whether the courts below are justified in dismissing the suit for injunction, when DW1 has admitted the plaintiff's title and possession over the suit property? (ii) Whether the courts below are right in recognising Ex.B1, deed of cancellation of sale deed, when in law, no such document is recognisable and could prevail? 9. From the pleadings and records made available, it is seen that one of the important question raised in this second appeal is as to the validity of execution of the cancellation deed dated 18.07.2003, Ex.B1. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, when a sale was made and it was also registered with the concerned Sub-Registrar, the first defendant has no legal right to unilaterally cancel it and if at all, the remedy open to her is to get such sale deed cancelled by filing a civil suit. Therefore, let me first deal with the second question of law raised in this second appeal. 10. It is the case of the first defendant that she did not execute the sale deed, Ex.A2, in favour of the plaintiff voluntarily, rather, it was made to be executed by the plaintiff by resorting to threat, coercion and intimidation. It is further stated that her thumb impression was obtained by the plaintiff in blank papers in which the sale deed was prepared. It was further stated that the plaintiff kept the first defendant in illegal confinement in a houe at Madras for some time, however, the first defendant managed to escape from the clutches of the plaintiff and came down to Tindivanam. Thereafter, she complained to the Sub-Registrar, Tindivanam regarding the forceful execution of the sale deed dated 06.03.2003 by the plaintiff, but no action was taken there against. Thereafter, she complained to the Sub-Registrar, Tindivanam regarding the forceful execution of the sale deed dated 06.03.2003 by the plaintiff, but no action was taken there against. Therefore, according to the first defendant, she executed the deed of cancellation dated 18.07.2003, Ex.B1. 11. It is seen from the deposition of the first defendant that though originally she deposed that she was not aware of the execution of the sale deed, Ex.A2 dated 06.03.2003 and she never visited the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tindivanam, she resiled back from her statement during the cross-examination and deposed that she went to the office of the Sub-registrar and also admitted the thumb impression in the sale deed, Ex.A2 dated 06.03.2003. The first defendant also admitted that the sale deed, Ex.A2 dated 06.03.2003 was attested by her daughter. Even though the first defendant alleged that she has given a complaint to the Sub-Registrar as well as the local police, no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the same. The first defendant also did not file any independent suit to get the sale deed, Ex.A2 dated 06.03.2003 cancelled. However, after four months from the date of execution of Ex.A2 dated 06.03.2003, the first defendant cancelled the sald deed Ex.A2 dated 06.03.2003, by executing the Deed of cancellation dated 18.07.2003, Ex.B1. 12. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in (G.D. Subramanian vs. Sub-Registrar, Office of Konur Sub-Registrar, Chennai) (2009) (2) MLJ 644, It was held therein that if an unilateral cancellation is allowed to be registered, without the knowledge and consent of the other party to the earlier contract, such registration would cause violence to the principles of natural justice and lead to unnecessary litigations emanating therefrom. 13. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, during the pendency of the second appeal, the plaintiff/appellant has filed WP No. 19274 of 2009 before this Court in which the first defendant was a party. In the order dated 19.09.2010 passed by this Court in WP No. 19274 of 2009, it was held in para No. 8 and 9, it was held as follows:- "8. In the order dated 19.09.2010 passed by this Court in WP No. 19274 of 2009, it was held in para No. 8 and 9, it was held as follows:- "8. When testing the correctness of registration or a cancellation of a sale deed without the knowledge of the concerned, in G.D. Subramanian vs. Sub-Registrar, Office of Konur Sub-Registrar, Chennai and others reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 644 , this Court, after considering the statutory provision, held as follows:- 17. A plain reading of Section 17 (b) provision would disclose that all non testamentary instruments declaring a right or title over immovable properties worth Rs.100/- and upwards shall be registered. A deed of cancellation of a sale falls within the purview of such an instrument declaring right and title of an immovable property. If any such document cancelling the sale is presented for registration, since the same is compulsorily registerable under Section 17, the Registering Officer is obliged to register the same, provided the execution of the said document is validly made by mutual consent of the parties and the same is not illegal or void. To constitute a valid execution, it should be executed by all parties to the earlier sale. Needless to say that unless there is valid execution by competent person, the Registering Officer has to necessarily refuse to register the document. Thus, in a situation where the document is either void or illegal or there is no valid execution, the Registering Officer is bound to refuse to register the same. De hors such a position, if the Registering Officer preceeds to register the said document, then the said registration would be without jurisdiction and not valid. 24. The cancellation deed was executed unilaterally by the third defendant on the ground that consideration was not paid by the petitioner. Admittedly, Section 32-A of the Act also has not been complied with. Above all, cancellation was made on the ground of non-payment of consideration by the petitioner. All the report decisions are to the effect that such a sale is a completed transaction not withstanding that the price agreed upon at the time of execution has never been paid (vide A Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Govindammal vs. Gopalachariar, 1906 Vol.XVI MLJ, Page No.524). On presentation of the said document, the first respondent ought to have refused to register the same. On presentation of the said document, the first respondent ought to have refused to register the same. Thus, the registration of the said document is without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. At the end, this Court summoned as follows:- (i) challenging registration of a unilaterally executed deed of cancellation of a sale, a writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. (ii) A deed of cancellation of a sale executed by mutual consent by all parties to the said sale deed, if presented for registration, the Registering Officer is bound to register the same provided the other requirements like Section 32-i of the Registration Act have been complied with (iii) The Registering Officer is obliged legally to reject and to refuse to register a deed of cancellation of a sale unilaterally executed without the knowledge and consent of other parties to the sale deed and without complying with Section 32-A of the Registration Act" 9. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the unilateral cancellation of the sale deed and the consequentil registration under document NO. 442 of 2003 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tindivanam, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. 14. Therefore, it is evident that the cancellation deed dated 18.07.2003, Ex.B1 has been set aside by this Court and it can no longer be relied on. Even otherwise, as per the Full Bench decision of this Court reported G.D. Subramanian vs. Sub-Registrar, Konur mentioned supra, unilateral cancellation of an instrument is legally impermissible and the only course open to a party is to seek for setting aside such instrument in a manner known to law, by approaching the competent Civil Court. The Full Bench of this Court has further held that even if consideration of sale has not been passed, yet, the mode open to an aggrieved party is to seek for declaration of the sale deed as null and void before the Civil Court. In this case, as admitted by both sides, till date, the first defendant has not filed a separate suit seeking to set aside the sale deed dated 06.03.2003, Ex.A2 executed by her. In this case, as admitted by both sides, till date, the first defendant has not filed a separate suit seeking to set aside the sale deed dated 06.03.2003, Ex.A2 executed by her. Both the courts below have failed to properly appreciate the legal position that an unilateral cancellation is bad in law especially it is now being contrary to the Full Bench decision mentioned above. For all the reasons mentioned above and on the basis of the order dated 19.09.2010 passed by this Court in WP No. 19274 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein, the second question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and against the defendants/respondents holding that the unilateral cancellation of Ex.A2 dated 06.03.2003 is bad in law. 15. The first question of law relates to admission of DW1 regarding possession of the plaintiff and his title to the suit property. For consideration of this question of law, it is necessary to look into the deposition of the parties. Admittedly, the suit property stands in the name of the first defendant. Now, it is claimed that the first defendant has no wherewithal to purchase it and it was in fact purchased by her husband, second defendant. It is also the case of the first defendant that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff on 06.03.2003, Ex.A2 was executed by her out of threat and coercion and it was not voluntary. In this context, in the cross-examination of DW1 on 30.08.2007, she deposed that "gj;jpuj;jpy; ifbaGj;Jk; th';fpdhh;fs;/ ehl;Lk; th';fpdhh;fs;/ vj;jid ifbaGj;J. ifehl;L th';fpdhh;fs; vd;W brhy;y KoahJ/ mnj nghy; gjpt[ Mtzj;jpYk; ifbaGj;J th';fpdhh;fs; " It is evident from the deposition of the first defendant that her thumb impression have been obtained only in the office of the sub-registrar, at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 06.03.2003, Ex.A2 and therefore, the theory put forward by the first defendant that the signature or thumb impression in the sale deed was forcibly obtained from her cannot be countenanced. 16. The decision relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the defendants/respondents in (N. Kaliamoorthy and others vs. Vairavan Chettiar) 2014 (5) CTC 801 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the case reported in N. Kaliamoorthy and others even though it was pleaded that sale was vitiated, possession has not been disputed. 16. The decision relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the defendants/respondents in (N. Kaliamoorthy and others vs. Vairavan Chettiar) 2014 (5) CTC 801 cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. In the case reported in N. Kaliamoorthy and others even though it was pleaded that sale was vitiated, possession has not been disputed. In this case, there is a clear admission on the part of the defendants 1 and 2 in their cross-examination that it is the plaintiff who is in possession of the suit property. In this context, the deposition of the defendants can usefully be looked in to. The first defendant deposed that "thjp tHf;Fiu brhj;jpypUe;J mDgtpj;J te;j gpujpthjpfis thjp jd; moahl;fis itj;J btspnaw;wptpl;L thjp tHf;Fiu brhj;ij Mf;fpukpj;Jf; bfhz;oUg;gij itj;J thjp tHf;Fiuapy; nfhhpa[s;s ghpfhuj;ij bgw jFjp mw;wth;/" Even DW2, husband of the first defendant, in his cross-examination has admitted that "tHf;F brhj;jpy; thjp jhd; ,Uf;fpwhh;/" It is evident from the deposition of the first defendant that the first defendant had tacidly admitted that it is the plaintiff who is in possession of the suit property. In a suit for bare injunction, the predominant consideration that has to be weighed is as to who is in possession of the suit property. In the present case, even as per the admission of the first defendant, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. In such circumstance, the suit filed by the plaintiff for bare injunction is maintainable. This part of the evidence of the first defendant has not been properly appreciated by the courts below. Therefore, I am of the view that the first substantial question of law also has to be answered in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 17. The learned senior counsel for the defendants also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Anathulla Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Legal heirs and others) 2009 2 Law Weekly 546 to contend that when there is cloud in the title, the plaintiff has to necessarily file a suit for declaration and the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. As mentioned above, there is no cloud with respect to the title to the suit property. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff by a registered sale deed. As mentioned above, there is no cloud with respect to the title to the suit property. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff by a registered sale deed. In such circumstances, the decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for the defendants is not applicable to the facts of this case. 18. The learned senior counsel for the respondents also relied on the decision of this Court rendered in (Saroja and others vs. R.P. Matheswaran) 2014 3 Law Weekly 726 for the proposition that fraud vitiates everything. Relying on this decision, it is stated that the sale in favour of the plaintiff is vitated by fraud. In this case, though the first defendant pleaded that her thumb impression were obtained in blank papers and she was confined in a house at Madras for some time, she has not chosen to give any police complaint or she has taken any steps to get the sale deed Ex.A2 dated 06.03.2003 cancelled in a manner known to law. Only after four months thereafter, she has executed the unilateral cancellation deed without the knowledge of the plaintiff. In such circumstance, this decision also do not lend support to the claim of the respondents. 19. Both the courts below have failed to appreciate the correct proposition of law with regard to unilateral cancellation. The question of title pleaded by the plaintiff ought to have been gone into by the Courts below when there is a denial on the part of the defendants. The defendants tacidly admitted the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed writ petition No. 19274 of 2009 before this Court and by virtue of an order dated 19.09.2010, the sale deed dated 06.03.2003, Ex.B2 itself was cancelled by this Court. Therefore, I am of the view that the decree and judgment passed by the Courts below cannot be sustained. 20. In the result, the decree and judgment passed by the courts below are set aside. The second appeal is allowed. The suit in O.S. No. 81 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam is decreed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.