JUDGMENT : The appellants in this appeal have called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in RFA No. 19 of 2008 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kujang in C.S. No. 26 of 2004. The appellants as the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction simplicitor against the respondent – defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession so far as the suit land is concerned. The trial court had decreed the suit and on an appeal being filed by the respondents as the unsuccessful defendants, these appellants/ plaintiffs have been non-suited. Therefore, now they have approached this Court with this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the court below. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land as per the sabik settlement stood recorded in the name of Sricharan Mohapatra and others. Father of defendant no. 1 and 2 namely, Doli Samal and Babaji Samal got Ac. 0.20 decimals of land under that sabik plot in OLR Case No. 1870 of 1975 from Sricharan Mohapatra and remained in possession of the same to the knowledge of all concerned. It is stated that sons of Doli alienated Ac. 0.9 decimals in favour of the father of plaintiff no. 2, 3 and father of the plaintiff no. 4 by registered sale-deed dated 19.01.1981 and he further sold Ac. 0.8 decimals in favour of that plaintiff no. 1 by registered sale-deed dated 30.08.1980. It is asserted that after purchase, they remained in peaceful possession of those lands. It is also stated that one Chandramani Samal got Ac. 0.4 decimals of land from Sricharan Mohapatra in OLR Case No. 238 of 1975 from the land under that sabik plot and he alienated the said land in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 by registered sale-deed dated 06.06.1978. Plaintiff no. 1 in turn alienated the said purchased land together with other lands in favour of the father of the plaintiff no. 2, 3 and father of plaintiff no. 4 by registered sale-deed dated 24.07.1978 and they have been possessing the said land. 1 by registered sale-deed dated 06.06.1978. Plaintiff no. 1 in turn alienated the said purchased land together with other lands in favour of the father of the plaintiff no. 2, 3 and father of plaintiff no. 4 by registered sale-deed dated 24.07.1978 and they have been possessing the said land. It is stated that they have constructed their residential house over the suit land and mutated the same in their favour vide Mutation Case No. 29 of 2003 and 29(3) of 2003 and have been accordingly paying rent. As the defendants without any right threatened them with dispossession, they filed the suit for permanent injunction as aforesaid. 4. The defendants while traversing the plaint averments have averred that the suit land belongs to the State and Doli Samal got it in OLR Case No. 1880 of 1975 and as such became a raiyat and the defendants have constructed their dwelling house and residing therein. It is their case that neither Doli nor his legal heirs have ever sold the suit land to the plaintiffs and have never given possession of the same at any time. It is also their case that since they are residing outside for earning their livelihood, appropriate steps could not be taken for recording of the land in the record of right. Thus, they prayed to nonsuit the plaintiffs. 5. In view of such rival pleadings, the trial court framed in total seven issues. Rightly, first going to issue no. 3 and 4 on the question of possession of the suit land by the parties as also the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the relief as claimed finally the findings have been rendered in favour of the plaintiff and those have practically led for grant of decree of permanent injunction. The lower appellate court being moved by the unsuccessful defendants has gone to say that since Ext. 1, the Hal record of right still stands recorded in the name of Sricharan Mohapatra and others, the sale-deeds have not been acted upon. That when the title is disputed by the defendants, the plaintiffs should have amended the plaint and should have sought for the relief of declaration of title and that the Tahasildar had no jurisdiction to mutate the land. In view of above, it has been held that such suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable and thus the suit has been dismissed. 6. In view of above, it has been held that such suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable and thus the suit has been dismissed. 6. The following substantial question of law arises in this appeal : Whether the lower appellate court has erred in law by non-suiting the plaintiff and the approach of the lower appellate court is not proper and it has also failed to dispose of the appeal as required in law being the final court of fact? 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the view taken by the lower appellate court is wholly erroneous. According to him, in the present case, necessary pleadings regarding title are there and appropriate issue relating to title as regards the alienation of the suit land by defendant no. 1, 2 and Babaji has been framed and also the parties fully knowing the same have led evidence. So, the trial court has rightly decided the issue even though it is a suit for injunction and has rightly used its discretion by enquiring into the title in not driving the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit. He also contends that the lower appellate court in a slipshod manner has gone to dispose of the appeal without examining in a proper manner as regards the sustainability of the findings of the trial court and without disagreeing with the reasons has taken contrary view. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supports the view taken by the lower appellate court. According to him, the suit as laid is not maintainable and the finding of possession of the suit land by the plaintiff as passed by the trial court has been rightly ignored. 9. The principles covering the subject has been enunciated in case of Antula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRS & Others; (2008) 4 SCC 594 and have been summarized as under:- (a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. 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. 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. 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.” 10. Now coming to the case in hand, it may be stated that the trial court on analysis of evidence both the oral and documentary has given a finding that the case land has been sold by the defendant no. 1 and 2 and Babaji in favour of the fathers of the plaintiff no. 2, 3 and 4 and to plaintiff no. 1 and Chandramani who again sold to plaintiff no. 1. In view of that having found from evidence that plaintiffs are in possession, it has been held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for injunction as prayed for. On going through the judgment of the lower appellate court at para – 11 in particular, it is seen that the approach has not been proper. The lower appellate court ought to have taken up the sustainability of finding of the trial court on the crucial issues for examination keeping the above settled legal position in mind and ought to have directed itself to consider the reasons for arriving at such finding as acceptable or not and then assigning reasons for having the disagreement with the same, should have gone to record necessary findings at its end. Thus it is seen that the disposal of the first appeal by the lower appellate court has not been done in a satisfactory manner and as required from the first appellate court which is the final court of fact. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower appellate court for disposal of the appeal afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the above observations. 11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of and in the circumstances without cost. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are set aside and the matter is remitted to the lower appellate court for disposal of the appeal afresh in accordance with law keeping in view the above observations. 11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of and in the circumstances without cost. The suit being of the year 2004 in order to save time, the parties are hereby directed to appear before the lower appellate court on 25.01.2016 to receive further instruction and the lower appellate court is also directed to dispose of the appeal by the end of March, 2016.