JUDGMENT : The defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants in a suit for permanent injunction, wherein the plaintiff has been granted a decree. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that there are two items in the suit schedule properties, which have been purchased by the plaintiff by three independent sale deeds and based on the same, he has been in possession of the suit properties. The first item of the suit property originally owned by one Palani Samban and he had three sons, namely, Thirumeni, Manickam and Nadimuthu. The said Manickam died issueless. Therefore, the first item had been divided between the other two brothers, viz., Thirumeni and Nadimuthu, in which the eastern 47 cents was allotted to Nadimuthu and western 47 cents was allotted to Thirumeni. The said Nadimuthu had settled in Singapore and his only son Govindarasu was enjoying the eastern 47 cents, which was allotted to his father. Thereafter, the plaintiff had purchased the first item of the suit property on 16.05.1991 and 30.07.1991 from the said Govindarasu. Similarly, the second item of the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff on 26.05.1986 as per Ex.A3 from one Srirengen. 3. It is further stated that the third defendant's father, namely, Nadesan was permitted to occupy 11 cents, out of 47 cents purchased by the plaintiff. Since the said Nadesan did not vacate the premises, a suit in O.S.No.44 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Orathanadu, came to be filed by the plaintiff and the same is said to be pending. Leaving the said 11 cents, the present suit was filed only for balance 36 cents. The defendants have got no title or interest over the same. As the defendants were disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, the suit was filed. 4. According to the defendants, Nadimuthu, who was the original owner of the suit first item of property, had given the same in favour of his sister, namely, Deivayanai, as srithana and therefore, the plaintiff has no right or title over the same. 5. Except the said statement, there is nothing else produced by the defendants to show that the claim of plaintiff is not sustainable. The defendants had not even examined the said Deivayanai to whom Nadimuthu alleged to have given the gift. 5. Except the said statement, there is nothing else produced by the defendants to show that the claim of plaintiff is not sustainable. The defendants had not even examined the said Deivayanai to whom Nadimuthu alleged to have given the gift. The Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has proved his title and possession and thus, decreed the suit. 6. This second appeal is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 8. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that 11 cents, which is the subject matter of the property in O.S.No.44 of 2006 and the balance 36 cents are in the possession of the third defendant's father Nadesan, even the said Nadesan was not examined to prove the same. The second item of the property is claimed by the plaintiff by virtue of the sale deed, dated 26.05.1986, under Ex.A.3. Even for the said property, the defendants have not produced any contra evidence to show that the plaintiff is not in possession. As the plaintiff had established that he has title for the suit properties and he has been in possession of the same, the Courts below have rightly granted a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. In the light of the above facts, there is no question of law arising for consideration. 9. In the result, this second appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.