JUDGMENT : The history of the case is as follows:- The respondent herein / plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.58 of 1998, on the file of District Munsif Court, Palani against the appellant herein / defendant, stating that the schedule mentioned property was originally belonging to one Perianatrayan and Chinnanatrayan, both of whom were blood brothers. The said property had been purchased by one Kumaravel Gounder on behalf of guardian of Periyanatrayan and Chinnanatrayan. Mr.Chinnanatrayan had sold the entire suit schedule mentioned property along with his brother's share namely Periyanatrayan. Hence, Periyanatrayan had initiated partition suit before the District Munsif Court in O.S.No.570 of 1967. In the said suit, preliminary decree was passed. Subsequently, supplementary application in I.A.No.1643 of 1970 was filed for final decree. The trial Court had appointed an Advocate Commissioner for dividing the said property. Accordingly, the western partition of the property was allotted to Chinnanatrayan and eastern portion of the property was allotted to Kumaravel Gounder. Accordingly, the said divided properties were enjoyed by them. Under the circumstances, the property comes under the municipality administration. Hence, the said Chinnanatrayan attempted to occupy the western portion of property which is belonging to Kumaravel Gounder. Hence, the said Kumaravel Gounder has filed O.S.No.306 of 1982 and the same was decreed and the property assigned to him through Court. 2. The plaintiff has further submitted that one Mr.Natrayan S/o Kandasamy, a native of Sivagiripatti Village, is usually involved in land disputes. The said Natrayan created false documents and claiming civil rights over the lands. The said Natrayan did not disclose the litigations and obtained a general power of attorney and the said Natrayan executed a sale deed to and in favour of the defendant namely S.Vanasekaran under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1980. Originally, the Kumaravel Gounder demarcated the said lands by laying stones. The defendant, on his own accord and unlawfully, subdivided the said property. Such a sub division will not bind the plaintiff in anyway. Mr.Kumaravel Gounder expired. Hence, his son is enjoying the said property. Subsequently, on 01.03.1996, the plaintiff had purchased the schedule mentioned property and other properties. The same was under the occupation and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The defendant, on his own accord and unlawfully, subdivided the said property. Such a sub division will not bind the plaintiff in anyway. Mr.Kumaravel Gounder expired. Hence, his son is enjoying the said property. Subsequently, on 01.03.1996, the plaintiff had purchased the schedule mentioned property and other properties. The same was under the occupation and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Knowing the rights of the parties of the said land, invalid sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant herein and a suit in O.S.No.289 of 1996 has been filed against Executor, K.K.Kumaravel Gounder and one Rajendran, relative of the plaintiff, for grant of permanent injunction. The same is pending enquiry. In the said case, Interlocutory Application No.659 of 1996 has been filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The learned Advocate Commissioner measured the property and submitted his report along with rough sketch, wherein the schedule mentioned property is in the share of Kumaravel Gounder. As such, the defendants sale deed is not valid. The plaintiff has filed impleading petition in O.S.No.289 of 1996 to implead herself as necessary party. Under the circumstances, the defendant restrained the plaintiff on 30.01.1998 from constructing building. The vacant land is under the care and maintenance of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant namely S.Vanasekaran and his men, agents etc. Hence, the suit has been filed. 3. The defendant has filed counter statement and denied the allegation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed documents along with the plaint which are not sustainable under law. The plaintiff, is never enjoying the schedule mentioned property. As such, she is not having any right over the property. Besides, the sale deed dated 01.03.1996 is not valid as per law. The schedule mentioned property was originally belonging to Natrayan family. A portion of the property had been purchased by one Kalimuthu from Natrayan, from whom the defendant had purchased the said property under a sale deed dated 19.03.1981 another portion of the property had been purchased by Rajalakshmi Sethumani from Natrayan. After purchase of the said property, the said Rajalakshmi Sethumani had sold it to and in favour of Kalimuthu. The defendant had purchased the said property from Kalimuthu. After purchasing the said property, the defendant had demarcated the said property after laying stone pillars and enclosed it with iron fencing. After purchase of the said property, the said Rajalakshmi Sethumani had sold it to and in favour of Kalimuthu. The defendant had purchased the said property from Kalimuthu. After purchasing the said property, the defendant had demarcated the said property after laying stone pillars and enclosed it with iron fencing. The said property has been utilised to park tractor and trailer, erection of cow shed and for storage of manure. All the relevant records namely revenue records and municipality records pertaining to the said property have been mutated in the name of the defendant. The defendant had remitted taxes to the Government. 4. The defendant has further submitted that he had mortgaged the said property with the Bank of India in the year 1988. Regarding the mortgaged loan amount, a suit in O.S.No.302 of 1996 is pending enquiry on the file of Sub-Court, Palani. Further, several persons obtained sale deed for the property belonging to the defendant and his father. The defendant is occupying and enjoying the said property for the past 17 years and the same is well known to the neighbouring owners, including the plaintiff and his vendor Kumaravel Gounder. The plaintiff disturbed the defendant's possession. Hence, a complaint has been lodged before the concerned police officer and a complaint was also filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn, referred the complaint to the Tahsildar, Palani and Inspector of Police, Palani Municipality, to inspect their property and to scrutinise the relevant documents and find out the persons who are in possession and having civil rights and submit the report before him. Accordingly, the said officers have submitted their report stating that the property is under the occupation of the defendant. On the basis of the said report, the Revenue Divisional Officer had passed an order in M.C.No.2 of 1997, dated 18.02.1997 stating that the plaintiff and his men are restrained from interfering with the possession of the defendant. This factual position has not been disclosed by the plaintiff. As such, there is no prima facie case on the side of the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the above suit. 5. This factual position has not been disclosed by the plaintiff. As such, there is no prima facie case on the side of the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the above suit. 5. The plaintiff has filed reply statement stating that defendant's vendor Chinna Natrayan had executed a general power of attorney on 10.08.1970 to and in favour of Natrayan, wherein the said Chinna Natrayan had mentioned that a partition suit is pending and therefore he had also given power to get possession and knowing the same, the defendant had obtained sale deed which is not valid since the sale deed is not binding on the erstwhile vendor as well as the plaintiff. The defendant had obtained loan after producing invalid documents. The Revenue Divisional Officer's proceedings has been cancelled by this Court in its order dated 21.08.1998. The partition suit will not be mentioned in the encumbrance certificate. The vendor of the defendant does not have enjoyment and possession over the suit property. 6. The defendant had filed reply statement stating that the plaintiff did not know the history of the case. The plaintiff is living at another district and he has registered his property in the other State and giving trouble to the defendant and hence the case has been filed after creating false documents. The plaintiff never enjoyed the suit property and he is not in possession. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit. 7. After recording both sides averments, the trial Court had framed 3 issues namely (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive permanent injunction restraining the defendants? (2) Whether the contention that defendant has enjoyment rights is correct? and (3) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 8. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit. 7. After recording both sides averments, the trial Court had framed 3 issues namely (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive permanent injunction restraining the defendants? (2) Whether the contention that defendant has enjoyment rights is correct? and (3) To what other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to? 8. On the side of plaintiff, one witness was examined and 5 documents were marked namely (1) Copy of preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.570 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Palani, dated 06.04.1970; (2) Copy of the final decree order passed in I.A.No.1443 of 1970 in O.S.No.570 of 1997 on the file of District Munsif Court, Palani dated 17.12.1970; (3) Copy of the Commissioner report in I.A.No.559 of 1996 in O.S.No.289 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Palani; (4) Copy of the suit registered in O.S.No.306 of 1982 on the file of District Munsif Court, Palani; (5) Sale deed executed by K.K.Kumaravel Gounder and others to and in favour of plaintiff dated 01.03.1996. 9. On the side of the defendant, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and 10 documents were marked namely (1) Sale deed executed by K.Natrayan to and in favour of Rajalakshmi and Sethumani dated 07.06.1974; (2) Sale deed executed by K.Natrayan to and in favour of Kalimuthu dated 27.06.1980; (3) Sale deed executed by Rajalakshmi and Sethumani to and in favour of Kalimuthu dated 07.07.1980; (4) Sale deed executed by Kalimuthu to and in favour of the defendant dated 19.03.1981; (5) Copy of the town survey field register of Palani Municipality dated 10.05.1996; (6) Copy of the order passed in M.C.No.2/97/A-6 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Palani; (7) General power of attorney executed by Mr.Natrayan to and in favour of Natrayan Servai; (8) Copy of Encumbrance Certificate; (9) Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.302 of 1996 on the file of Sub-Court, Dindigul and (10) Copy of the complaint lodged by the defendant before the Palani Town Police dated 04.06.1996. 10. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that the plaintiff is his wife. The schedule mentioned property was originally belonging to Periya Natrayan and Chinna Natrayan. The said suit property had been purchased by Kumaravel Gounder from Periya Natrayan, in the year 1957. During the purchase of the said property, Chinna Natrayan was a minor. 10. PW1 had adduced evidence stating that the plaintiff is his wife. The schedule mentioned property was originally belonging to Periya Natrayan and Chinna Natrayan. The said suit property had been purchased by Kumaravel Gounder from Periya Natrayan, in the year 1957. During the purchase of the said property, Chinna Natrayan was a minor. The said Chinna Natrayan has filed a civil suit in O.S.No.570 of 1967, against Periya Natrayan sating that he had fraudulently sold the property. In the said suit, the total extent of land was 1 acre 68.3/4 cents, out of which half of the property was given to Chinna Natrayan and the same was granted as per preliminary decree. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1643 of 1970 was filed in which final decree was passed. Before passing final decree, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and allotted half of the east portion of the schedule mentioned property to Kumaravel Gounder and other half of the western portion of the property was allotted to Chinna Natrayan. To that effect, PW1 had marked copy of the preliminary decree and final decree. 11. PW1 further stated that the defendant herein had filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.289 of 1996, against Kumaravel Gounder and one Rajendran for a declaration. In the said suit, Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and he inspected the suit property and submitted a report stating that the said property purchased by the plaintiff was belonging to Kumaravel Gounder. The Commissioner's report and the sketch have been marked as Exhibit-A3. PW1 further stated that in the year 1981, the said Chinna Natrayan and Murugesan had jointly made an attempt to interfere with possession of Kumaravel Gounder, by way of encroachment. The Kumaravel Gounder had filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.306 of 1982, against Chinna Natrayan and Murugesan. The suit was decreed in favour of Kumaravel Gounder. Copy of the suit register had been marked as A4. Thereafter, the plaintiff had purchased the said property on 01.03.1996. The sale deed had been marked as Exhibit A5. As such, the schedule mentioned property is belonging to the plaintiff. PW1 further stated that the defendant had obtained order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was set aside by this Court. 12. Thereafter, the plaintiff had purchased the said property on 01.03.1996. The sale deed had been marked as Exhibit A5. As such, the schedule mentioned property is belonging to the plaintiff. PW1 further stated that the defendant had obtained order under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the Revenue Divisional Officer and the same was set aside by this Court. 12. PW1 was cross examined and he stated that before purchasing the property, he had verified the title deeds and the same stood in the name of Kumaravel Gounder. The property had been registered on the file of Sub- Registrar, Pasala, Kerala. PW1 admitted that the defendant was not a party in O.S.No.306 of 1982. Further, PW1 stated that he did not know about the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.306 of 1982 and about Power of attorney executed by Chinna Natrayan to and in favour of Natrayan over the said property. Further, he did not know about the sale deed executed by Natrayan Servai to and in favour of one Kalimuthu in the year 1980 for a portion of the land. Further, he did not know that the power holder Natrayan Servai had executed a sale deed to and in favour of one Rajalakshmi and Chinna Sethumani in the year 1974 for another portion of the schedule mentioned property. The said Rajalakshmi and Chinna Sethumani had jointly sold the said property to and in favour of Kalimuthu and this fact also was not known to PW1. PW1 stated that he did not know that the said Kalimuthu had executed as a sale deed to and in favour of the defendant herein. Further, the Revenue records have been mutated in the name of the defendant and the said property had been mortgaged with Bank of India and this fact also was not known to PW1. 13. In order to recover the said loan amount, the bank had initiated suit in O.S.No.302 of 1996 against the defendant and this fact also was not known to PW1. 14. DW1 had adduced evidence stating that he is the defendant in the suit. The schedule mentioned property was initially belonging to Chinna Natrayan. The said Chinna Natrayan had executed a general power of attorney to and in favour of Natrayan Servai in the year 1970. 14. DW1 had adduced evidence stating that he is the defendant in the suit. The schedule mentioned property was initially belonging to Chinna Natrayan. The said Chinna Natrayan had executed a general power of attorney to and in favour of Natrayan Servai in the year 1970. The said power holder Natrayan Servai had sold a portion of the schedule mentioned property to and in favour of one Kalimuthu and another portion was sold to and in favour of Rajalakshmi and Sethumani. DW1 had marked the said sale deeds as B1 and B2. Rajalakshmi and Sethumani had executed a sale deed in the year 1980 and the same has been marked as Exhibit-B3. As such, the said Kalimuthu has become owner of the property. DW1 further stated that he had purchased the said property from Kalimuthu in the year 1981 and the sale deed had been marked as Exhibit B-4. After purchasing the said property, iron fence was laid around the property. In the said land, parking lots for tractor and trailor were made and agricultural equipments were kept. In order to protect the schedule mentioned property, one Nachimuthu has been permitted to put up and run a laundry shop. From 1984 till now, the said Nachimuthu has been running a shop in the schedule mentioned property. The property is situated within the municipality limits. 15. The municipality survey field register has been marked as Ex.B5. In the year 1996, the plaintiff had attempted to make wrong entry into the suit property. Hence, DW1 had made a complaint to the Revenue Divisional Officer and Police. The Revenue Divisional Officer had conducted enquiry on 18.02.1997 in the presence of both parties and passed orders against the plaintiff and directed him not to interfere with the schedule mentioned property. The said order has been marked as Exhibit-B6. 16. DW1 had stated in his cross examination that he had verified encumbrance certificate from 01.03.1981 to 06.12.1999, wherein except for the purchaser's name, no encumbrance was mentioned. The encumbrance certificate was marked as B8. The suit property had been mortgaged with Bank of India in the year 1988 and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was obtained as loan. The said loan amount had not been remitted. Hence, the Bank officials had filed a suit for recovery in O.S.No.302 of 1996. The plaint had been marked as Ex.B9. The encumbrance certificate was marked as B8. The suit property had been mortgaged with Bank of India in the year 1988 and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was obtained as loan. The said loan amount had not been remitted. Hence, the Bank officials had filed a suit for recovery in O.S.No.302 of 1996. The plaint had been marked as Ex.B9. The Sub-Court had issued attachment order over the said property. DW1 further stated that he is in possession from the year 1981 as of now. Three years before, the plaintiff and her men attempted to trespass into the suit property. Hence, on 04.06.1996, complaint had been lodged before the concerned Police Officer. The proof of the complaint had been marked as Ex.B10. The said complaint had been referred to Revenue Divisional Officer, who passed an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The said property had been registered on the file of Sub-Registrar office, Padasalai in Kerala State, which is 750 kms from Palani. DW1 further stated that in O.S.No.570 of 1967, partition decree was passed. He admits that the schedule mentioned property had not been mentioned separately in the prescribed schedule of property but it has been mentioned as a portion of the common property. Further, the property can be divided after contesting the suit. 4 cent of land had been sold instead of 4 malls. DW1 did not know about the partition suit in O.S.No.570 of 1967. DW1 further stated that he had purchased the property after measurement and on basis of the plan. 17. The Advocate Commissioner had inspected and measured the land in O.S.No.289 of 1987 and submitted the report. At the time of getting loan from the bank, DW1 did not disclose about the suit, DW1 admits that at the time of measuring the land by the Surveyor, he was present and the Surveyor informed that the schedule mentioned property had not come under Chinna Natrayan's share. Against the findings of the Surveyor, he made an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. He did not know the case in O.S.No.306 of 1986 filed by Kumaravel Gounder against Chinna Natrayan. DW1 did not know that the Revenue Divisional Officer's order was set aside by this Court. 18. DW2 had adduced evidence stating that he is doing laundry work under the defendant. He did not know the case in O.S.No.306 of 1986 filed by Kumaravel Gounder against Chinna Natrayan. DW1 did not know that the Revenue Divisional Officer's order was set aside by this Court. 18. DW2 had adduced evidence stating that he is doing laundry work under the defendant. He is running a laundry shop over an extent of 10 to 11 cents of land, which belongs to the defendant. He is running the laundry shop from the year 1985. Over the suit property, lorry, tractors are parked and manure stored thereon. About 5 years ago, Police Officers, Village Administrative Officers had asked the defendant to remove the belongings of the defendant from the suit property. The defendant objected to the same. DW2 further stated that he obtained permission from the defendant in the year 1985 and has been running the laundry shop. Police Officers, Tahsildar and Sub-Collector came to the property and made enquiry. 19. DW2 in his cross examination stated that door number has not been mentioned and he is residing at a house, belonging to Jayamani, who is the elder brother of defendant. There is a drainage in between the shop and the suit property and any person can freely go and come in the next house as there was no doors or windows. 20. After recording the evidence of witnesses and on perusing the exhibits marked by both parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Against the said dismissal of the said suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2001, on the file of Sub-Court, Palani. The learned Judge, after hearing arguments of both sides and on perusing the trial Courts records, allowed the said appeal and set aside the trial Courts decree and judgment. The learned Appellate Court Judge observed that the suit schedule mentioned property is a vacant site and that the plaintiff possessed valid title deeds and has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment. 21. Against the decree and judgment passed by the first Appellate Court, the defendant has filed the above second appeal. When the matter came up for final hearing, after a lapse of 11 years, the learned counsel Mr.M.P.Senthil, appearing for the appellant filed a memo stating that he has not received any further information, from his client / appellant herein. 21. Against the decree and judgment passed by the first Appellate Court, the defendant has filed the above second appeal. When the matter came up for final hearing, after a lapse of 11 years, the learned counsel Mr.M.P.Senthil, appearing for the appellant filed a memo stating that he has not received any further information, from his client / appellant herein. To that effect, the learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memo stating "no instruction from his client". 22. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised grounds in the second appeal as well as raised substantial questions of law. Grounds : "1. The Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court is contrary to law and gives raise to various substantial questions of law. 2. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law on holding that the respondent is entitled to the relief of injunction in the absence of any positive and acceptable evidence. 3. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law in reversing the well considered Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. 4. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law on proceeding on the assumption that the suit property is part of the property allotted to the share of the Vendors of the respondent in the absence of any evidence. 5. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law in not adverting to the absence of any recitals under Exhibit A-5 tracing the title or possession or the Vendors of the Respondent. 6. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law on proceeding on the basis of Exhibit A-3, the Commissioner Report filed in O.S.No.659 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Palani without any corroboration especially under Exhibit A-3 is not admissible in evidence. 7. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law in relying upon Exhibits A-3 and A-4 without adverting to the absence of any materials establishing the possession or that the suit property do form part of the property allotted to the share of the Vendors of the Respondent. 8. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law on relying upon Exhibit A-3 merely on the basis that no objection was raised at the time of marking the document. 9. 8. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law on relying upon Exhibit A-3 merely on the basis that no objection was raised at the time of marking the document. 9. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law in not considering the specific recitals under Exhibits B1 to B3 setting out in detail relating to the title of the Vendors of the Appellate and delivery of actual possession. 10. The Lower Appellate Court completely misread the recitals under Exhibits B-1 to B-4 and mislead the specific defences resisted in the Written Statement. 11. The Lower Appellate Court committed an error in stating that the Appellate suppressed the rights of the Respondent's vendor in the Written Statement and proceeded to cast the burden of proof on the appellant who is only the defendant in the suit. 12. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law in not considering Exhibits B-5, B-6, B-9 and B-10 corroborating the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 establishing the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 13. The Lower Appellate Court completely overlooked the property came to be alienated as early as in the year 1974 and the appellant became the owner in the year 1981 and also made steps for putting up of constructions and established possession for merely 18 years. 14. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law in not adverting to the admission of P.W.1 himself regarding possession and enjoyment of the property particularly with reference to the enjoyment of Chinnanatrayan. 15. The Lower Appellate Court erred in law in casting the burden of proof on the Appellant especially when the respondent as Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving possession and enjoyment on the basis of Exhibit A-5 which came to be executed and registered at Padasalai in the absence of any explanation for registering the document at afar away place. 16. The Lower Appellate Court overlooked assuming without admitting the admisability of Exhibit A-3, the report establishes possession of the suit property by the Appellant. 17. The Lower Appellate Court completely misdirected itself with reference to the pleadings and evidence. 18. The various other reasons adduced are equally unsound and unsustainable." Questions of law: "(i) Whether the suit for bare injunction is maintainable without seeking a prayer for declaration and of title having regard to the indisputable fact that the claim of title of the Respondent is disputed long prior to the suit. 18. The various other reasons adduced are equally unsound and unsustainable." Questions of law: "(i) Whether the suit for bare injunction is maintainable without seeking a prayer for declaration and of title having regard to the indisputable fact that the claim of title of the Respondent is disputed long prior to the suit. (ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in granting decree in the absence of any evidence regarding possession and enjoyment of the suit property especially when the claim of the Respondent under Exhibit A-5 is disputed. (iii) Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court are vitiated by its failure to consider Exhibits B-6, B-9 and B-10 and the admission of P.W.1 besides the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2." 23. The learned counsel Mr.V.Bharathidasan appearing for the respondent has filed written submissions which are as follows:- "i) Whether the suit for bare injunction is maintainable without seeking a prayer for declaration and of title having regard to the indisputable fact that the claim of title of the respondent is disputed long prior to the suit. ii) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in granting decree in the absence of any evidence regarding possession and enjoyment of the suit property especially when the claim of the respondent under Ex.A3 is disputed. It is clear from the evidence on record, the Appellant's vendor's vendor was one Chinna Natarayan. His brother was Periya Natrayan. Both have right and title to an extent of an 1.68 3/4 acres situated in the Sivagiripatti Village, Palani Town Municipality, Dindigul District. When the Chinna Natrayan was minor, the Periya Natrayan sold the property for family necessity to one Kumaravel Gounder who was none other than the vendor's vendor of the plaintiff/ respondent. The said Chinna Natrayan, after becoming a major filed the suit in O.S.No.570 of 1967 against said Vendee Kumaravel Gounder to cancel the sale deed executed by his brother Periya Natrayan and claiming 1/2 share and separate possession. The said suit was decreed and preliminary decree for 1/2 share to the said Chinna Natrayan was granted. On the basis of preliminary decree, final decree application was filed in I.A.No.1643 of 1970 and same was ordered by equal division original acres 1.68 3/4 extent into two equal half 86 1/2 cents to Chinna Natrayan and 86 1/2 cents to Kumaravel Gounder. On the basis of preliminary decree, final decree application was filed in I.A.No.1643 of 1970 and same was ordered by equal division original acres 1.68 3/4 extent into two equal half 86 1/2 cents to Chinna Natrayan and 86 1/2 cents to Kumaravel Gounder. The said Chinna Natrayan executed power deed on 10.08.1970 in favour of one Natrayan Servai under Ex.B7. In the said document, the power of attorney is authorised to file petition for separate possession in continuation of the final decree in I.A.No.1643 of 1970 and authorised to sell the properties allotted to Chinna Natrayan. There was no separate proceedings initiated by power agent by filling the Execution Petition. Without getting separate possession, the said power agent sold the portion of the property to the one Rajalakshmi under Ex.B1 on 07.06.1974 and another portion to the one Kalimuthu under Ex.B2. The said Rajalakshmi executed the sale deed in favour of the Kalimuthu under Ex.A3 on 07.07.1980. The said Kalimuthu executed sale deed in favour of Defendant / Appellant under Ex.A4 on 09.03.1981. In the meantime, the Chinna Natrayan was trying to interfere with the possession of the Kumaravel Gounder and encroached on 10 cents of lands of Kumaravel Gounder. So, Kumaravel Gounder filed the suit in O.S.No.306 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani for declaration of title and recovery of possession and thereafter possession was taken in E.P.No.320 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif, Palani and the same was recorded on 24.08.1998. Thereafter the said Kumaravel Gounder died. From his legal heir, the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property and only an extent of 5115 square feet out of the 86 1/2 cents was allotted to Kumaravel Gounder in final decree proceedings in the O.S.No.570 of 1967. Under the above circumstance, the plaintiff / respondent established title to the suit property by producing necessary document evidence. From Ex.A1 to A6 and Ex.B7, B4, it is clear that the plaintiff's vendor was owner of 86 1/2 cents in the western portion and he filed the suit in O.S.No.306 of 1982 for declaration of recovery of possession and the same was decreed and possession was taken. So, the First Appellate Court decreed the suit holding that declaration of title was not necessary as competent civil Court had declared the title and right in O.S.No.570 of 1967 and O.S.No.306 of 1982. So, the First Appellate Court decreed the suit holding that declaration of title was not necessary as competent civil Court had declared the title and right in O.S.No.570 of 1967 and O.S.No.306 of 1982. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court held that when the documentary evidence was available to prove the declaration title, it is not necessary to claim relief of declaration of title along with the right of bare injunction. Further DW1 admitted in evidence that both Kumaravel Gounder and Chinna Natrayan have equal right with following version. XXX XXX XXX XXX From the Ex.A1 to A2, it is clear that Kumaravel Gounder was in enjoyment of property of an entire extent of 1.86 3/4 cents belonging to both Periya Natrayan and Chinna Natrayan. The said Chinna Natrayan filed the suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.570 of 1967 and suit was decreed by granting preliminary decree for 1/2 share in 1.86 3/4 and final decree was granted by allotting 86 1/2 cents to Kumaravel Gounder and Chinna Natrayan. On the basis of said final decree, the Chinna Natrayan did not take possession. He executed power to Natrayan Servai under Ex.B7 with following terms: XXX XXX XXX XXX As per the terms, he did not file any execution proceedings for separation of possession. The DW1 also admitted that there was no such proceedings of possession in following terms: XXX XXX XXX XXX In the said circumstance, it is legitimate to infer the possession over the suit schedule property before the O.S.No.570 of 1967, during the pendency of suit and after the completion of final decree with the Kumaravel Gounder vendor of the Plaintiff. Further, Kumaravel Gounder filed the suit in O.S.No.306 of 1982 for declaration and recovery of possession and same decreed. The said Kumaravel Gounder also had taken possession on 24.07.1992 and the same was recorded on 24.08.1992 under Ex.A4. In that circumstance, plaintiff / respondent proved her case of possession over the suit schedule property. Further she also established her vendor's title to the suit property. In the defendants exhibits B-1, 2, 3 and 4 also eastern boundary of defendant property was plaintiff's vendor property. In that circumstance, plaintiff / respondent proved her case of possession over the suit schedule property. Further she also established her vendor's title to the suit property. In the defendants exhibits B-1, 2, 3 and 4 also eastern boundary of defendant property was plaintiff's vendor property. In that circumstance, applying principle clause (2) of 2008 (4) SCC 594 , she established her title to vacant land and possession over the suit property, so finding by Appellate Court could not interfere by invoking 100 of C.P.C. 2008 (4) SCC 594 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 an 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. 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. 2004 (1) SCC 769 12) In Kallappa Rama Londa's case (AIR 1995 Karnataka 238), the learned Single Judge has upheld the maintainability of a suit merely seeking injunction, without declaration of title, and on dealing with several decided cases the learned Judge has agreed with the proposition that where the suit for declaration of title and injunction is filed and the title is not clear, the question of title will have to be kept open without denying the plaintiff's claim for injunction in view of the fact that the plaintiff has been in possession and there is nothing to show that the plaintiff has gained possession by any unfair means just prior to the suit. That is the orrect position of law. In Fakirbhai Bhagwandas and Anr. Vs. Manganlal Haribhai and Anr. That is the orrect position of law. In Fakirbhai Bhagwandas and Anr. Vs. Manganlal Haribhai and Anr. AIR 1951 Bombay 380 a Division Bench spoke through Bhagwati, J. (as His Lordship then was), and held that it is not necessary for the person claiming injunction to prove his title to the suit land. It would suffice if he proves that he was in lawful possession of the same and that his possession was invaded of threatened to be invaded by a person who has o title thereof. We respectfully agree with the view so taken. The High Court has kept the question of title open. Each of the two contending parties would be at liberty to plead all relevant facts directed towards establishing their titles, as respectively claimed, and proving the same in duly constituted legal proceedings. By way of abundant caution, we clarify that the impugned judgment shall not be taken to have decided the question of title to the suit property for or against any of the contending parties. 2015 (1) MWN (Civil) 582, 589 are similar proposition. From the above judgment it is clear that when the abundant evidence available on record to prove the title, the injunction suit is maintainable. In this case, as stated above plaintiff's vendors title admitted by the DW-1 and also competent civil court determined the title of the plaintiff's vendor of the Kumaravel Gounder in O.S.No.570 of 1967 and O.S.No.306 of 1982 and also the B-7 as well as B-4 also conferred the title of the plaintiff's vendor. So the question of law raised by the appellant are not legally correct considering the above facts and circumstances of the case in coupled with the above principle of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. iii) Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court are vitiated by its failure to consider Ex.B6, Ex.B9 and B10 and the admission of PW1 besides the evidence of DW1 and DW2. B6 - 18.02.1997 section 145 of Cr.P.C. proceeding order M.C.2/97V/-6 B9 - Plaint in O.S.No.302 of 1996 B10 - 04.06.1996 complaint receipt given by Palani Town Police Station. The learned Executive Magistrate passed Order in M.C.2/97V under section 145 of Cr.P.C. The said order was quashed by Hon'ble Madras High Court on 01.08.1998. The said fact was not specifically denied by DW1 in his evidence. The learned Executive Magistrate passed Order in M.C.2/97V under section 145 of Cr.P.C. The said order was quashed by Hon'ble Madras High Court on 01.08.1998. The said fact was not specifically denied by DW1 in his evidence. XXX XXX XXX XXX From the above feigning ignorance, it is clear that B6 is quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Hence reliance placed on the basis of B6 is not correct. Ex.B9: Plaint in O.S.No.302 of 1996 filed by bank against defendant for recovery of mortgage loan amount. The said document is not admissible under law against plaintiff. There was no evidence to prove that said property is the same as the property in dispute. Ex.B10 is complaint receipt given by the Palani Police Station. The said document did not establish the possession of defendant in the suit property. Police complaint receipt is not admissible evidence either to prove the possession of defendant or prove enjoyment of defendant over the suit properties. In that circumstances, Ex.B-6, B-9, B10 did not show the enjoyment of defendant in suit schedule vacant land. Further appreciation of evidence by Appellate Court regarding possession of plaintiff is question of fact and same was not interfered by this Hon'ble Court by executing power under 100 of C.P.C. The Hon'ble Trial Court specifically declined to accept the case of defendant/appellant that he acquired the property by adverse possession. In that circumstance also the Second Appeal is liable to be set aside. The original vendor of defendant was one Chinna Natrayan brother who executed a sale deed in favour of Kumaravel Gounder including his share and said Kumaravel Gounder was in continuous possession over the property. After attaining the age of a major Chinna Natrayan filed the suit in O.S.No.570 of 1967 and claiming 1/2 share and separate possession stating the Kumaravel Gounder was in enjoyment of property. In the said suit, preliminary decree was granted and final decree application was filed and final decree was granted allotting equal half share viz 86 1/2 cents in the western side to the said Chinna Natrayan 'A' item of property and 86 1/2 cents Eastern side to Kumaravel Gounder 'B' item of property. Thereafter the said Chinna Natrayan executed power deed in favour of one Natrayan Servai in the year 1970. Thereafter the said Chinna Natrayan executed power deed in favour of one Natrayan Servai in the year 1970. The said power deed, authorized the power of attorney to file execution proceeding for recovery of possession to set 1/2 of share of properties as per the final decree application and alienate the property. There was no evidence adduced on the side of the defendant's vendor that he got the possession on the basis of the final decree. Their vendor's case was that the plaintiff's original vendor Kumaravel Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of property. The specific evidence of DW1 was that he did not enquire whether any proceedings were initiated for recovery of possession as per final decree. In that circumstance, it is legitimate that Kumaravel Gounder namely plaintiff vendor was in occupation of property and subsequently plaintiff is in, continuous enjoyment of property. The defendant filed suit in O.S.No.289 of 1996 for bare injunction without impleading plaintiff. In the said suit, advocate commissioner was appointed and the same report was filed by advocate commissioner and the said report was not in favour of the defendant. Hence the defendant had withdrawn the above said suit. So the defendant had frequently created situation of filing suit. So the plaintiff suit decreed by the First Appellate Court ought to have been confirmed by dismissing the present second appeal. Further suit schedule property is vacant land. Since, the plaintiff clearly established title to the suit property vide Ex-A1 to A3 and B1 to B3, B7, her possession is to be presumed on the principle that possession of vacant land goes with title. Hence, question of law raised by appellant is not substantial question of law and are also not legally sustained." 24. From the above discussions, it is seen that the plaint schedule property comprised in S.F.No.101/6, situated at Sivagiripatti Village, to an extent of 1.68 3/4 acres was originally belonging to Periya Natrayan and Chinna Natrayan. The Periya Natrayan sold the entire property to one Kumaravel Gounder on behalf of his minor brother and himself. The minor brother Chinna Natrayan, after attaining the age of a major, had filed suit in O.S.No.570 of 1967, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani, against the purchaser Kumaravel Gounder seeking partition of his half share, by setting aside the said sale deed executed by Periya Natrayan. The minor brother Chinna Natrayan, after attaining the age of a major, had filed suit in O.S.No.570 of 1967, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani, against the purchaser Kumaravel Gounder seeking partition of his half share, by setting aside the said sale deed executed by Periya Natrayan. The said suit was decreed and preliminary decree was passed. Subsequently, final decree was passed and the said property had been divided into 2 half shares and the western portion was allotted to Chinna Natrayan and the eastern portion was allotted to Kumaravel Gounder. Under the circumstances, the Chinna Natrayan trespassed into the property of Kumaravel Gounder. Hence, the said Kumaravel Gounder had filed a suit in O.S.No.306 of 1982 against Chinna Natrayan and another for declaration of title to the property in favour of Kumaravel Gounder. The said suit was decreed and delivery of property was taken on 24.07.1992 in E.P.No.320 of 1992 in O.S.No.306 of 1982. The delivery was recorded by the E.P. Court and the E.P. was terminated on 24.08.1992. Thereafter, the plaintiff had purchased the suit property dated 01.03.1996. The judicial decree clearly reveals that the plaintiff's vendor, Kumaravel Gounder was absolute owner of the eastern portion of the property. The Judicial decree passed in O.S.No.306 of 1982 has become final. 25. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the appeal grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the written submission submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent and on perusing the records of the Courts below and the view expressed by this Court, the above second appeal does not have any merits. Hence, it is dismissed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.24 of 2001, on the file of Sub-Court, Palani dated 22.06.2004, as reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.58 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani dated 31.08.2001 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.