JUDGMENT : Challenge in this second appeal is directed to the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2003 passed in A.S.No.29 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV Erode at Bhavani modifying the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2002 passed in O.S.No.104 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani. 2. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law. (a) Whether the suit is barred by resjudicata? (b) Whether the judgments of the courts below are vitiated in that they have misinterpreted the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 211 of 1996 and O.S. No. 271 of 1996? (c) Whether the judgments of the courts below are vitiated it when they held that the present suit is not maintainable in view of the pendency of the appeals having been filed against O.S. No. 211 of 1996 and O.S. No. 271 of 1996, when admittedly there is no material to show the pendency of such appeals? 3. The Appellant/Plaintiff has laid the suit in O.S. No. 104 of 2001 against the respondents/defendants for the relief of permanent injunction claiming that the suit property as described in the plaint is in his actual, absolute and exclusive physical possession and enjoyment based on the possessory title. On a reading of the plaint averments it is found that the appellant seeks the abovesaid relief on the footing that the suit property has been in his continuous, long, absolute and exclusive possession from the days of his grandfather Ganapathy Gounder and thereby, he and his forefathers had prescribed their right to the suit property and accordingly recognizing their right of the enjoyment of the suit property over a long period of time, it is contended that the Revenue Officials had acknowledged the same and despite the same, inasmuch as the defendants without any authority, attempted to interfere with his possession and enjoyment, according to the appellant, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs. 4. 4. The defendants had resisted the suit laid by the appellants on various grounds and in particular, the second defendant has resisted the appellant's suit contending that the suit property absolutely belonged to the second defendant, in particular, and in his possession and enjoyment, and the appellant has never been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as claimed and further it is also pleaded by him that the suit laid by the appellant without seeking the relief of declaration is not maintainable and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. 5. In support of the appellant/plaintiff's case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined. Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial court was pleased to dismiss the appellant's suit. On appeal by the appellant, the first appellate court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record, was pleased to modify the judgment and decree of the trial court and thereby the first appellate court granted the relief sought for by the appellant as against the first defendant alone and dismissed the suit laid by the appellant as against the second defendant. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred. 7. Considering the rival pleas put forth by the respective parties, when the appellant has based his suit mainly on the plea of possessory title and evidently when it is found that the appellant has not claimed seeking any pacca title to the suit property as such and when the said alleged claim of possessory title sought for by the appellant is challenged by the defendants tooth and nail, as rightly putforth by the second defendant in the written statement when the appellant's claim of possessory title to the suit property is being stiffly challenged by the defendants, the appellant should have sought for by the relief of declaration that he is entitled to the possessory title in respect of the suit property as projected in the plaint. 8. The appellant claims to be in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from the days of his grandfather and thereby it is his case that he has acquired possessory title to the suit property. 8. The appellant claims to be in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from the days of his grandfather and thereby it is his case that he has acquired possessory title to the suit property. In otherwards, the appellant seeks claim of title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. However, when it is found that the plea of title on the basis of adverse possession cannot be sought for, particularly, by laying a suit as held in the decisions of the apex court reported in 2014 (1) SCC 669 [Gurudwara Sahib Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another] and 2018 (11) SCC 449 [Dharampal (Dead) Through LRs Vs. Punchab Wakf Board and others], it is found that cleverly the appellant had omitted to ask for the said relief and on the other hand, however seek to enforce only the said relief by way of filing the present suit by asking the relief of permanent injunction. In other wards, by seeking the relief of permanent injunction, the appellant wants to enforce his claim of possessory title to the suit property on the plea of adverse possession, which he cannot do, as the plaintiff in the light of the pronouncements of the above reported decisions of the apex court. Accordingly, the suit laid by the plaintiff/appellant, as such, is found to be not maintainable. 9. The first appellate court seems to have accepted the appellant's case as regards the first defendant, on the footing that the first defendant has laid the suit against the appellant in O.S. No. 1116 of 1971 and left the suit to go for dismissal without proper prosecution and on that footing, it is found that the first appellate court though it fit that the appellant is entitled to maintain the suit and seek the reliefs against the first defendant. 10. Admittedly, the second defendant is not a party in O.S. No. 1116 of 1971. The same has been admitted by the appellant. Further the description of the property as furnished in O.S. No. 1116 of 1971 is not shown to be bounded by any specific boundaries as well as not described clearly and in such view of the matter, it is found that it cannot be firmly held that the present plaint schedule property is involved in O.S. No. 1116 of 1971. Further the description of the property as furnished in O.S. No. 1116 of 1971 is not shown to be bounded by any specific boundaries as well as not described clearly and in such view of the matter, it is found that it cannot be firmly held that the present plaint schedule property is involved in O.S. No. 1116 of 1971. Be that as it may, when the second defendant is not a party to O.S. No. 1116 of 1971, it is found that the judgment and decree passed in the said suit would not in any manner binding on him. Accordingly, inter alia it is found that the first appellate court had refused to grant the relief sought for by the appellant as against the second defendant. 11. The appellant in that plaint would aver that his father is an old man, aged about 75 years and renounced the world and living like a sage and it is only the appellant who is feeding him and further according to the appellant, his father right from the days of infancy, is a weak minded person and never cares for acquisition of wealth or preservation of wealth. When such is the character of appellant's father, it is found that even as per the case of the appellant, his father would not have evinced interest to enjoy the suit property as described in the plaint and in such view of the matter, the appellant for seeking the relief as against the second defendant, as such, should establish his claim of possession of the suit property as described in the plaint and as projected by him in the plaint. 12. With reference to the abovesaid case of the appellant, it is found that the appellant has marked Exs.A1 to A6 which are only the receipts issued in favour of the appellant's father Nagappan towards the license fee for the purpose of industries and factories. However, there is no description of the plaint schedule property as described in the plaint in the abovesaid documents. Therefore, from the abovesaid receipts, we cannot infer that the appellant's father has been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as described in the plaint. However, there is no description of the plaint schedule property as described in the plaint in the abovesaid documents. Therefore, from the abovesaid receipts, we cannot infer that the appellant's father has been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as described in the plaint. When according to the appellant, his father is a weak minded person, right from the days of his infancy and not shown any interest in acquiring any wealth etc., however the appellant had chosen to file the receipts marked as Exs.A1 to A6 in the name of his father for the purpose of establishing his possessory title to the suit property. However, when the abovesaid documents are not shown to be correlated to the plaint schedule property as such, on the basis of the said documents, we cannot hold safely that the suit property is in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant's father or the appellant as the case may be. The document marked as Ex.A7 stated to be adangal extract is found to be issued on 30.01.2002 which had come into existence after the institution of the suit. Therefore, it is found that the abovesaid document would not be useful to sustain the case of the appellant. Ex.A8 is the FMB and by way of the same, it cannot be inferred that the suit property is in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant as put forth by him. Exs.A9 to A11 are the documents pertaining to O.S. No. 1116 of 1971 and as above seen, the description of the suit property involved in the abovesaid suit is not shown to be similar to the plaint described suit property and further more when the second defendant is admittedly not a party to the abovesaid suit proceedings, it is found that Exs.A9 to A11 would not in any manner to be useful to sustain the appellant's case as far as the second defendant is concerned. It is thus found that none of the documents projected by the appellant would go to establish that the suit property is in his possession and enjoyment right from the days of his grandfather as claimed in the plaint. Accordingly, it is found that the trial court had rejected the appellant's case. It is thus found that none of the documents projected by the appellant would go to establish that the suit property is in his possession and enjoyment right from the days of his grandfather as claimed in the plaint. Accordingly, it is found that the trial court had rejected the appellant's case. However, the first appellate court on the strength of the proceedings in O.S. No. 1116 of 1971 had granted the relief in favour of the appellant as against the first defendant alone and rejected his case as against the second defendant. 13. In the light of the above discussions and position, when the appellant has not placed any acceptable and reliable material so sustain the case of possessory title to the suit property as such and in particular, when the appellant has failed to establish the claim of possession and enjoyment of suit property as projected in the plaint, in my considered opinion, the first appellate court should have dismissed the appellant's suit in entirety. However the first appellate court has granted the relief in favour of the appellant as against the first defendant. Since no challenge has been made by the first defendant to the same, I deem it not fit to interfere with the abovesaid determination of the first appellate court. 14. In this Second Appeal, the senior counsel appearing for the appellant would however contend that the Courts below had erred in dismissing the appellant's suit on the plea of resjudicata based on the common judgment passed in O.S. No. 271 of 1996 and O.S. No. 211 of 1996. The copy of the judgment passed in the abovesaid suit has been marked as Ex.B1 and the copy of the decree in O.S. No. 271 of 1996 has been marked as Ex.B2. The copy of the decree passed in O.S. No. 211 of 1996 has not been exhibited. No doubt, the Courts below had also proceeded to dispose of the matter on the plea of resjudicata, based on the judgment and decree passed in the abovesaid suits. The copy of the decree passed in O.S. No. 211 of 1996 has not been exhibited. No doubt, the Courts below had also proceeded to dispose of the matter on the plea of resjudicata, based on the judgment and decree passed in the abovesaid suits. As rightly put forth by the appellant's counsel, for raising the plea of resjudicata, based on the abovesaid common judgment passed in the said suits, there should be proper foundation put forth by the defendants by projecting the pleadings filed in the abovesaid suits as well as the issues which had been formulated in the abovesaid suits and the evidence adduced in the abovesaid suits by the respective parties for claiming title to the subject matter etc., and when it is found that no such effort has been taken by the defendants, in the light of the principles of law outlined in the decision of the apex court reported in 2004 (2) LW 373 [Smt. V. Rajeshwari Vs. T.C. Saravanabava], it is found that the determination of the Courts below that the appellant's suit should fail also on the plea of resjudicata, as such, cannot be sustained. 15. Be that as it may, when it is found that the appellant has miserably failed to establish his claim of possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the plaint particularly as against the second defendant and when the documents projected by the appellant do not in any manner advance his case and accordingly the Courts below had rightly rejected the appellant's case as against the second defendant. In my considered opinion, the determination of the Courts below in negativing the appellant's case as against the second defendant do not warrant any interference. 16. The substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are accordingly answered. 17. In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.