JUDGMENT : R. MALA, J. 1. The defendants, who lost the case in both the Courts below have come forward with this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai dated 23.01.2006 in A.S. No. 65 of 2005 confirming the judgment and degree of the District Munsif, Kulithalai dated 27.12.2004 in O.S. No. 219 of 2001. 2. The respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property situated in Thogaimalai Village in S. No. 174/4 to the extent of 0.46.0 hectares and in S. No. 179/11 to the extent of 0.58.0 hectares stating that the property is owned by Lakshmi and Andi Muthiriar under the sale deed dated 02.08.1980 and since they intended to go abroad, they orally sold the same to the grand father of the plaintiff viz., Ponnambalam for Rs.250/- and handed over the original sale deed and possession of the suit property and from that date onwards, said Ponnambalam was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death in 1978. After his death, his only son Mariappan, succeeded the property and after his death, in 20.12.2000, the plaintiff succeeded the property and he was in possession and enjoyment for more than 60 years without any interference. Now, the defendants 1 and 2, who are the junior paternal uncles without any right in the suit property attempted to interfere the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. They have no right over the property. The third defendant claiming title as if he purchased the suit property from the defendants 1 and 2 attempted to interfere the possession of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff has constrained to file the suit for bare injunction. 3. Resisting the same, the appellants/defendants filed a detailed written statement stating that Ponnambalam is not the owner of the property and he was not in possession and enjoyment of the same. The property is originally owned by Thothammai and Kanniammal and after their demise, the property belongs to Ponnambalam, Karuppannan and Vairaperumal and they are entitled each 1/3 share. The third defendant purchased the property from the defendants 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- vide sale deed dated 12.04.2001. The property is originally owned by Thothammai and Kanniammal and after their demise, the property belongs to Ponnambalam, Karuppannan and Vairaperumal and they are entitled each 1/3 share. The third defendant purchased the property from the defendants 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- vide sale deed dated 12.04.2001. From that date onwards, the third defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, openly, continuously and uninterruptedly for more than statutory period. Hence, he prescribed title by adverse possession and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The trial Court, on consideration of the averments both in the plaint and written statement, framed necessary issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence and upon consideration of the argument made on either side, decreed the suit, against which, the defendants preferred an appeal, where the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been confirmed and hence, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants. 5. At the time of admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law has been framed for consideration of the second appeal.” “Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction without looking into the contention raised on the side of the appellants/defendants?” Substantial Question of Law No. 1 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the suit property is belonging to one Mahamuni and he had three sons viz., Ponnambalam, Karuppannan and Vairaperumal. The defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Karuppannan. The plaintiff's father Mariappan is the son of Ponnambalam. Mariappan has another children viz., Karuppiah, Mahamuni, Pazhani and Marudhai. The property is ancestral property and hence, they are entitled each 1/3 share and that factim was not considered by the trial Court. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted that the oral sale for more than Rs.100/- is not valid under law. Merely because Ex.A14 has been passed by R.D.O., the trial Court accepting the same decreed the suit. The civil Court along is the competent Court to decide the title to the property. 8. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted that the oral sale for more than Rs.100/- is not valid under law. Merely because Ex.A14 has been passed by R.D.O., the trial Court accepting the same decreed the suit. The civil Court along is the competent Court to decide the title to the property. 8. He has further submitted that the suit for bare injunction itself is not maintainable without prayer for declaration of title and for the reason, he relied on the decision reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy. 9. He has further relied on the decision reported in (2003) 1 M.L.J. 21 Lakshmana Gounder v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Salem Steel Plant, Salem and submitted that patta is a document of possession and that factum has not been considered by both the Courts below. 10. He has further relied on the decision reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh and another decision reported in 2014 (4) CTC 471 Union of India v. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and submitted that the plaintiff must prove his case and prayed for allowing of the appeal. 11. Resisting the same, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff/respondent for more than 60 years. His grandfather viz., Ponnambalam is in possession of the enjoyment and he paid kist in his name. Since, originally, the property is belonging to one Senthamarai, she sold the same to Kanniammal under Ex.A1 dated 25.08.1915. Kanniammal has sold the same to Lakshmi Ammal and Andi Muthiriar under Ex.A2 dated 24.03.1918. When they are intended to go abroad, they sold the property orally to Ponnambalam for a sum of Rs.250/- and handed over the original documents and from that date, Ponnamblam was enjoying the property. To prove the same, the plaintiff filed documents viz., kist receipts, patta and adangal also and that factum was correctly considered by both the Court below. He has further submitted that both the Courts below has held that the plaintiff/respondent is in possession of the suit property for more than statutory period and hence, the possession shall not be disturbed by the appellants and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. He has further submitted that both the Courts below has held that the plaintiff/respondent is in possession of the suit property for more than statutory period and hence, the possession shall not be disturbed by the appellants and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Considering the rival submissions made on either side, it is true, the plaintiff/respondent must be prove his case. It is appropriate to consider the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, wherein, the Supreme Court has held that entries in mutation must be taken as correct, unless the contrary is established. 13. It is also appropriate to consider the decision reported in 2014 (4) CTC 471 Union of India v. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. wherein, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “15. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff's own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.” There is no quarrel over the proposition. 14. The learned counsel for appellants has further relied on the decision reported in (2003) 1 M.L.J. 21 Lakshmana Gounder v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), Salem Steel Plant, Salem and submitted that patta has been proved the possession. The relevant portion in para 12 is extracted herein: “12. A patta is a record of possession represents a distinct fractional part of lands. The said presumption has its roots in the system of land tenure and in the custom of the area in which the lands are situate. Each pattadar manages his lands and pays fixed share of the Government Revenue. Entries in revenue records are not conclusive, but their importance in a case for possession cannot be denied, until contrary is shows. Though one cannot challenge the entry in revenue records as incorrect but can always impugn it as having been made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Each pattadar manages his lands and pays fixed share of the Government Revenue. Entries in revenue records are not conclusive, but their importance in a case for possession cannot be denied, until contrary is shows. Though one cannot challenge the entry in revenue records as incorrect but can always impugn it as having been made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Followed the decision in Vishwa Vijay Bharathi v. Fakhrul Hassan and others, (1976) 3 SCC 642 . In this case, the Apex Court has held the entries in the revenue records generally to be accepted at their face value and Courts should not embark upon an appellate enquiry into their correctness. But, the presumption of correctness can apply to genuine, not forced or fraudulent entries. When, in a particular case, facts disclose no title in either party, possession alone will decide the right of the parties.” Here, even though in Exs.A1 and A2, survey number has been mentioned as 60, the suit property is situated in S. No. 179/4 and 179/11. However, both the Courts below has taken Ex.A14 and came to the conclusion that the property mentioned in Exs.A1 and A2 is the suit property. 15. It is pertinent to note that during UDR, patta has been changed in the name of the Karuppannan. After enquiry, order has been passed under Ex.A14, wherein, it was specifically mentioned that before 1984, patta No. 236 stands in the name of Andi Muthiriar and Lakshmi Ammal. Ponnambalam has paid kist for patta No. 239, which was evidenced by Exs.A11 and A12. The father of the plaintiff/respondent Mariappan has paid kist for patta No. 236 and that has been evidenced by Exs.A11 and A12. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent is alone enjoying the property. But, during U.D.R. In 1984, patta has been changed in the name of Karuppannan and that has been challenged by Mariappan, the father of the respondent and on that basis, enquiry has been conducted and order has been passed and the patta issued in the name of Karuppannan, son of Mahamuni has been cancelled. But, the third respondent/third defendant herein is claiming title under the sale deed Ex.B13, wherein, it was stated that defendants 1 and 2 had sold the property as if they got the property by ancestral and patta stands in his name. However, the patta has already been cancelled before Ex.B13 came into existence. But, the third respondent/third defendant herein is claiming title under the sale deed Ex.B13, wherein, it was stated that defendants 1 and 2 had sold the property as if they got the property by ancestral and patta stands in his name. However, the patta has already been cancelled before Ex.B13 came into existence. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the appellants herein were not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since patta has been wrongly changed in the name of Karuppannan, they claiming title and sold the property. Therefore, both the Courts below have correctly held that the respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decision reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy and submitted that if there is any cloud upon the title, then only, declaration is necessary. The relevant portion in para 21 is extracted herein: “21. To summarize, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is 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. (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)]. (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. 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.” In view of the above said decision, the suit is maintainable without prayer for declaration of title. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Therefore, I am of the view that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below does not warrant any interference and the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are liable to be confirmed and second appeal deserves to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.