JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2008 on the file of Sub-Court, Theni, has preferred this second appeal as against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 9 of 2009 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2009, dismissing the suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Court, Theni. 2. During the pendency of this second appeal, the appellant namely, P.V. Parasuraman, died. The appellants 2 to 8 have been brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant. The deceased first appellant filed the suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Court, Theni, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The suit is also for permanent injunction, restraining the fifth respondent namely, the Sub-Registrar, Theni Sub-Registrar Office, N.R.T. Road, Theni Town, Theni Taluk, Theni District, from registering any sale deed that may be executed by the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. 3. The suit properties are described in two items. Item I is an extent of 1 acre lying in the middle out of an extent of 3 acre 45 cents in S. No. 658 situated in Karattukattu Revenue Village, Allinagaram Village, Theni District. Item II of the plaint schedule is an extent of 45 cents on the western side of the total extent of 65 cents in S. No. 656 situated in the same village. Both the properties are described with reference to four boundaries. The case of the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2008 on the file of Sub-Court, Theni, is as follows: 4. The suit I item was purchased by the plaintiff on 10.07.1967 from one Sivanandi. The suit II item was also purchased from the said Sivanandi by a subsequent sale deed dated 13.11.1967. The suit properties were originally mortgaged by the vendor of the plaintiff in favour of one P. Sinnasamy Pillai, by a registered mortgage deed dated 30.12.1966, for a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. As per sale deed dated 10.07.1967, the said mortgage has to be redeemed by the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff redeemed the mortgage on 31.07.1967 and has obtained the receipt from mortgagor. 1,000/-. As per sale deed dated 10.07.1967, the said mortgage has to be redeemed by the plaintiff and accordingly, the plaintiff redeemed the mortgage on 31.07.1967 and has obtained the receipt from mortgagor. The enjoyment of the suit properties were given to the plaintiff from the date of sale and the plaintiff is cultivating the lands. 5. The defendants 1 to 4 are the sons of the plaintiff's vendor by name, Sivanandi Thevar. The defendants 1 to 4 have the land on the south side of suit I item and on the east side of suit II item. Since the plaintiff refused to execute the sale deed in favour of defendants 1 to 4, the defendants 1 to 4 with mala-fide intention are trying to encroach into the suit property from 01.02.2004. The defendants 1 to 4 have no right or enjoyment over the suit properties and unless the defendants are restrained by a permanent injunction, the plaintiff would be put to hardship and loss. Since the defendants 1 to 4 were also making efforts to sell the suit properties to some other third party, the plaintiff was also constrained to seek injunction restraining the fifth defendant from registering any sale deed that may be executed by the defendants 1 to 4. 6. The suit was contested by the defendants 1 to 4 disputing the right of their father to execute the sale deeds dated 10.07.1967 and 13.11.1967. Alleging that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of defendants, it is contended by the defendants that the sale deeds executed by their father are not binding on the defendants 1 to 4. It is also stated in the written statement that the defendants 1 to 4 were minors at the time of executing the sale deeds and that they realised that the sale deeds have been executed by their father, when he was in drunken mood. 7. It is also the case of the defendants that the first defendant in the suit has been wrongly described as S. Ravichandran @ Murugan and he was never known by the said name and that the wrong description of the first defendant would show how the plaintiff has purchased the suit properties without knowing the names of real owners. 8. It is also the case of the defendants that the first defendant in the suit has been wrongly described as S. Ravichandran @ Murugan and he was never known by the said name and that the wrong description of the first defendant would show how the plaintiff has purchased the suit properties without knowing the names of real owners. 8. It is the further case of the defendants that the suit properties originally belonged to their grand mothers, who are the wives of their grand father by name, Sundarathevar and the properties were inherited by the defendant's father from their grand mothers. The defendants further contended that one Mayakkal is the second wife of their father and that she is also the sister of the first wife of their father namely, Annamuthammal. 9. It is alleged by the defendants that the sale deeds were obtained by the plaintiff taking advantage of their father's drunken habit. The suit was also contested by the defendants on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party as their sister by name, Pitchaiammal has not been impleaded as a party in the suit. 10. It is also the specific case of the defendants that the father of the defendants 1 to 4 was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and he handed over the possession to the defendants 1 to 4 in the year 1987. 11. The defendants 1 to 4 contended that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for three generation and the plaintiff has no title or enjoyment over the suit properties. Even though the plaintiff has fraudulently obtained the sale deeds, it is stated by the defendants that the suit property was in enjoyment of defendants. The plaint averments were also specifically denied in the written statement. The fifth defendant also filed a written statement referring to the sale deeds executed by the father of defendants 1 to 4 in favour of plaintiff. The written statement has been filed admitting the case of the plaintiff with regard to the genuineness of the sale deeds obtained by the plaintiff on 10.07.1967 and on 13.11.1967. 12. Before the trial the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and marked the documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A.21. The defendants examined two witnesses including the first defendant as DW-1 on behalf of the defendants 1 to 4. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.29 were marked. 13. 12. Before the trial the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and marked the documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A.21. The defendants examined two witnesses including the first defendant as DW-1 on behalf of the defendants 1 to 4. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.29 were marked. 13. The trial Court after framing the necessary issues refused to go into the legal implications of the sale deeds obtained by the plaintiff on 10.07.1967 and 13.11.1967 on the ground that the question regarding the title of plaintiff is not necessary as the plaintiff has not asked for a declaratory relief about his ownership. 14. The trial Court further observed that the Court can go into the issue regarding the plaintiff's title only if the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title. Since the question of title is not decided in the suit, the trial Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. It is unfortunate that the trial Court even after framing the issues refused to decide the title. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S. No. 21 of 2008, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 9 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam. 15. During the pendency of the appeal in A.S. No. 9 of 2009, the plaintiff filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 290 of 2012 to reopen the case mainly for production of further documents. The said application was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 09.10.2012. 16. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff further filed another Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 1 of 2010 for amendment of plaint to include the prayer for declaration of his title. Though the application in I.A. No. 1 of 2010 was allowed by the trial Court, the defendants 1 to 4 filed civil revision petition in C.R.P. (MD) No. 2097 of 2010 before this Court. This Court allowed the civil revision petition and dismissed application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint. The plaintiff also filed I.A. Nos. 15 and 29 of 2009 for receiving additional evidence before the lower appellate Court. The said applications were dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff has not given sufficient reason for non production of the additional documents during trial of the suit. 17. The plaintiff also filed I.A. Nos. 15 and 29 of 2009 for receiving additional evidence before the lower appellate Court. The said applications were dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that the plaintiff has not given sufficient reason for non production of the additional documents during trial of the suit. 17. The lower appellate Court categorically found that the sale deeds executed by the father of defendants 1 to 4 on 10.07.1967 and on 13.11.1967 are not challenged by the defendants 1 to 4 to set aside the alienations on any ground. The lower appellate Court was of the view that only question that is relevant for consideration is whether the plaintiff has proved his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Though the sale deeds executed in favour of the plaintiff, it was found that possession was not handed over to the plaintiff, having regard to the fact that there was subsisting mortgage under which possession was handed over to the mortgagor earlier. 18. The lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff was not given possession of the suit properties, when the plaintiff purchased the suit properties. Since the prayer for reopening the case for the purpose of marking certain documents was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the additional documents, which are sought to be marked were not filed before the lower Court and no reason or explanation has been stated by the plaintiff as to why he could not produce those documents during trial, the lower appellate Court dismissed the said Interlocutory Application for reopening the case. 19. The defendants 1 to 4 admitted the sale deeds executed by their father under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2. After recording the fact that the suit properties were mortgaged under Ex.A.3 dated 20.12.1996 and in the sale deed substantial position of consideration was reserved for the redemption of the said mortgage by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court also concluded that the sale deed under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 cannot be disputed by the defendants. However, the lower appellate Court also held that the only question to be decided is whether the plaintiff has proved his possession and enjoyment over the suit properties. 20. It is an admitted fact that the mortgage, that was created by the father of defendants 1 to 4, was also redeemed and the receipt for payment was marked as Ex.A.4. However, the lower appellate Court also held that the only question to be decided is whether the plaintiff has proved his possession and enjoyment over the suit properties. 20. It is an admitted fact that the mortgage, that was created by the father of defendants 1 to 4, was also redeemed and the receipt for payment was marked as Ex.A.4. Since the document Ex.A.4 do not refer to surrender of possession to the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that it is not proper to hold that the plaintiff took possession upon redemption of mortgage as the redemption of mortgage was to an extent of 3 acres 17 cents. 21. Since the sale deeds under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 were executed without possession as the properties were mortgaged in favour of a third party and the document Ex.A4 does not refer to possession, the lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff has not proved his possession in respect of the suit properties. 22. In this case, the plaintiff did not examine himself as a party on the ground that he was very old. Since PW-1 was aged about 48 years at the time of giving evidence, the lower Court drew adverse inference against the plaintiff for not examining himself as a witness. Further, strangely the appellate Court interpreted the admission of PW-1 that the property is a vacant land to hold that the plaintiff has not proved his enjoyment by cultivation. Though the plaintiff has produced patta to prove his enjoyment, only joint patta has been issued by including the name of plaintiff. 23. The lower appellate Court further has observed that the plaintiff has not produced any adangal accounts. The lower appellate Court held that the suit properties, which have been referred to as the property in enjoyment of Sivanandi vakaiyara, as per Ex.B13 to Ex.B26 cannot be held to be in the enjoyment of plaintiff. Even though the defendants, who assailed the title of plaintiff failed to prove the same, the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff cannot be granted the relief as sought by him because of the failure on the part of the defendants to prove their case. 24. It was specifically argued on the side of the plaintiff that reference to Sivanandi Vakaiyara will also include the plaintiff. 24. It was specifically argued on the side of the plaintiff that reference to Sivanandi Vakaiyara will also include the plaintiff. However the appellate Court held that the plaintiff has not taken any steps to prove possession by summoning the documents from the office of Thasildhar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai. 25. Thus, the appellate Court also found that the plaintiff has not proved his possession. Finally, the appellate Court rejected the contention of the plaintiff that he is in possession by referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Arappan Karayalar and Another Vs. Subramania Karayalar, 2001 LW 724 wherein it is held that a suit for bare injunction without the claim for declaration of title is not maintainable. 26. The appellate Court further observed that when there is dispute regarding title and the suit is filed for bare injunction without the relief for declaration of title, the principle possession follows the title cannot be applied. The appellate Court also dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff to receive additional evidence in I.A. No. 15 of 2009. Finally, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff preferred the above second appeal. 27. At the time of admitting the case, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law: (a) Whether the findings of the first appellate Court the appellant could not be in possession of the suit property though the first appellate Court upheld the discharge of the Othi debt by the appellant in pursuance of the right of redemption mentioned in the sale deed Ex.A1 is erroneous since the first appellante Court has failed to consider the effect of Sections 91 and 92 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. (b) Whether the findings of the Courts below that the suit is hit by non-joinder of necessary party viz. Pitchaiammal, the elder sister of the defendant is un-sustainable because the suit is only for permanent injunction wherein the plaintiff has include the person who are interfering with the possession as defendant and a suit for injunction never hit by non-joinder of necessary party is correct. Pitchaiammal, the elder sister of the defendant is un-sustainable because the suit is only for permanent injunction wherein the plaintiff has include the person who are interfering with the possession as defendant and a suit for injunction never hit by non-joinder of necessary party is correct. (c) When there is no provision mandating refusal of relief of injunction on the ground that the declaration have not been asked for in the Specific Relief Act, 1963, though as per Section 34 of the Act, the relief of declaration can be refused in cases where consequential relief could have been claimed but omitted to ask for and since the Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act provides for suit for bare injunction even in the case of the title of the plaintiff is being denied, whether the finding of the Courts below that the suit for bare injunction filed by the appellant without asking for declaration of title is not maintainable warrants interference by this Court. (d) When the first appellate Court held that the respondent / defendant accepted the sale in favour of the appellant, whether the further finding of the first appellate Court that the suit for injunction without a prayer for declaration is not maintainable is correct. 28. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has raised an additional substantial question of law, which is extracted hereunder: When the first appellate Court held that the respondent/defendant accepted the sale in favour of the appellant, whether the further finding of the first appellate Court that the suit for injunction without a prayer for declaration is not maintainable is correct. 29. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellate Court accepted the case of the plaintiff regarding title on the basis of the sale deeds executed by the father of the defendants 1 to 4 in favour of plaintiff. However, the appellate Court held that suit for injunction without the prayer for declaration of title is not maintainable and therefore, the findings of the appellate Court is contrary to law and on the erroneous understanding of precedents. 30. However, the appellate Court held that suit for injunction without the prayer for declaration of title is not maintainable and therefore, the findings of the appellate Court is contrary to law and on the erroneous understanding of precedents. 30. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants referred to two documents filed under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 which are sale deeds executed by the father of defendants 1 to 4 in favour of plaintiff and submitted that the defendants 1 to 4 have not challenged the said sale deeds within the period of limitation. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that symbolic possession was taken from the father of defendants 1 to 4 before executing the sale deeds under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, since mortgage deed under Ex.A3 dated 10.07.1967, was redeemed by the plaintiff. He further stated that the Courts below ought to have held that the suit property was taken possession by the plaintiff especially when the original mortgage deed was produced by the plaintiff. It is submitted that for the redemption of mortgage by the plaintiff, there is no other document or evidence to infer that possession of the properties was taken from the mortgagee. 31. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that the defendants 1 to 4 are not claiming right under the mortgage deed nor it is their claim that they took possession of the suit property without reference to the document Ex.A4 by which the suit properties and other properties were redeemed. He further submitted that the plaintiff, who is entitled to redeem the mortgage under Section 91 of Transfer of Property Act and redeemed the property, is entitled to exercise his right against the mortgagor and the findings of the Courts below without reference to Section 91 and 92 of the Transfer of Property Act, are unsustainable in law. 32. He further submitted that the suit property is a vacant land. Hence, the principle that possession follows title ought to have been applied by the Courts below. 33. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants made an elaborate submission on the question of maintainability stating that this is a case, where the plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction based on title and that the defendants are bound by the sale deeds executed by their father namely, Sivanandi Thevar. 34. 33. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants made an elaborate submission on the question of maintainability stating that this is a case, where the plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction based on title and that the defendants are bound by the sale deeds executed by their father namely, Sivanandi Thevar. 34. The lower appellate Court specifically found that it has to be concluded that the sale deeds executed by the defendants' father have been admitted by the defendants 1 to 4. The lower appellate Court ought to have seen that there is no dispute with regard to title and therefore, the relief for bare injunction cannot be denied to the plaintiff. The Courts below ought to have held that the prayer for bare injunction is maintainable without the relief for declaration of title having regard to the peculiar circumstances. 35. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants further relied upon the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff and submitted that in all the revenue records, the name of plaintiff was also included as joint pattathar in respect of the suit properties. Since the Adangal accounts produced by the defendants also referred to Sivanandi Vagaiyara, the lower appellate Court ought to have held that the reference to Sivanandi Vagaiyara should be understood to include the plaintiff also as the plaintiff's name is included as joint pattathar. He further submitted that the Courts below have committed error in applying the legal principles. 36. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since the plaintiff, who is bound to prove his case for getting a decree for permanent injunction, has failed to prove his possession and enjoyment over the suit properties, it is submitted that while this Court exercising the power under Section 100 CPC, cannot be go beyond the findings of the Courts below, which are supported for reasons. 37. The learned counsel for the respondents then submitted that the documents Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, though referred to possession being handed over to the plaintiff, the recitals are false as there was othi deed when the sale deeds were executed under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. 38. 37. The learned counsel for the respondents then submitted that the documents Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, though referred to possession being handed over to the plaintiff, the recitals are false as there was othi deed when the sale deeds were executed under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. 38. The specific case of plaintiff in the plaint is that the plaintiff took possession on the date of sale and there is no pleading in the plaint that the plaintiff took possession upon the redemption of mortgage on 31.07.1967. Therefore, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that the Courts below are right in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he obtained possession pursuant to the sale deed under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. 39. The learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the Adangal accounts produced by the defendants would clearly prove the defendants' enjoyment and that therefore, the findings of the Courts below are supported by material documents. The learned counsel further submitted that though the defendants have not challenged the findings of the appellate Court on the question of genuineness of documents under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, in a suit for bare injunction unless the plaintiff proves his possession, he cannot get a decree for injunction. 40. The learned counsel for the respondents later fairly admitted that in this case the plaintiff's suit for bare injunction cannot be thrown out merely because the suit is not filed for the relief of declaration of title. 41. Heard the arguments elaborately on either side. 42. The suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2008 is of course for bare injunction, but however based on the two sale deeds under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, dated 10.07.1967 and 13.11.1967, the suit is also against the sons of the plaintiff's vendor by name Sivanandithevar. It is to be noted that the suit property though refers to the extent of property under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 out of the larger extent, the suit property has been described in the sale deed as well as in the plaint with reference to specific boundaries on all sides. 43. Pursuant to the sale deeds, the plaintiff's name has been included as joint pattathar in respect of S. Nos. 656 and 658. The defence that was taken in the written statement has no significance in this case. 44. 43. Pursuant to the sale deeds, the plaintiff's name has been included as joint pattathar in respect of S. Nos. 656 and 658. The defence that was taken in the written statement has no significance in this case. 44. The defendants 1 to 4 have admitted that the suit property originally belonged to their father namely, Sivanandithevar. It is to be noted that the case of the defendants 1 to 4 is that the suit property was their ancestral property and they admitted that the suit property originally belonged to their grant mothers by name, Annamuthammal and Mayakkal. It is also admitted that Annamuthammal settled her share over the suit property in favour of Sivanandi. Since Sivanandi, is the son of Mayakkal, the second wife of the father of Sivanandi, the entire suit property came to the hands of father of Sivanandi. 45. It cannot be disputed that the defendants 1 to 4 have no right over the suit properties till the life time of Sivanandi. Therefore, the sale deeds executed by Sivanandi in favour of plaintiff cannot be legally questioned during his life time. 46. The only contention of the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit is that the sale deeds under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 have been obtained from the father of defendants 1 to 4, when he was in drunken mood. Even the plea in this regard is not specific but the defendants 1 to 4 presumed that the sale deeds must have been obtained from their father fraudulently. Though the defendants 1 to 4 presumed the sale deeds fraudulent their case is that the sale deeds are not binding on them as they were minors at the relevant point of time. From the nature of case pleaded by the defendants, it can be taken that the defendants have no defence to deny the title of plaintiff under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. 47. It is true that the plaintiff has to prove that they are in enjoyment as the suit is for bare injunction. Apart from the sale deeds, the plaintiff has also produced the original mortgage deed that was executed by the father of defendants 1 to 4 in respect of the suit properties and other properties adjacent to the suit properties. In the sale deed under Ex.A1 dated 10.07.1967, the plaintiff has received only part of the said consideration and a sum of Rs. In the sale deed under Ex.A1 dated 10.07.1967, the plaintiff has received only part of the said consideration and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was retained by the plaintiff for discharging the mortgage that was created by the plaintiff's vendor by a registered document dated 13.12.1966. Admittedly, the mortgage was redeemed immediately after the sale deed under Ex.A1. It is only by virtue of such redemption of mortgage any one claiming under Sivanandi can claim possession. 48. In this case, the plaintiff has pleaded that he is in possession of the suit property. Even though it is pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff took possession, pursuant to the sale deeds, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the redemption of mortgage has great significance in this case. 49. The Courts below has held that under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee has a legal obligation to deliver the property and all the documents relating to the mortgaged property, which are in the possession of mortgagee to the mortgagor upon settlement of mortgage amount. In this case, the original mortgage deed was produced by the plaintiff and the mortgage money has been paid only by the plaintiff to the mortgagee. 50. In such circumstances, the findings of the Courts below that possession was not handed over to the plaintiff at the time of redemption is nothing but perverse. It is not the case of the defendants 1 to 4 that upon redemption, the property was delivered to the defendants 1 to 4. 51. As a matter of fact, DW-1 pleaded ignorance about the sale deeds executed by his father in favour of plaintiff and the redemption of mortgagee by paying the mortgage money by the plaintiff. Even, during the course of evidence, the defendants admitted that joint patta was issued in respect of S. Nos. 656 and 658. They also admitted that the patta was given in respect of the suit properties in patta Nos. 608 and 806. The defendants did not dispute the fact that in patta Nos. 608 and 806, the name of the plaintiff was included as a joint pattatharar along with Sivanandi and Others. DW-1 further admitted that a joint patta stands in the name of his father Sivanandithevar and Others including the plaintiff. 52. 608 and 806. The defendants did not dispute the fact that in patta Nos. 608 and 806, the name of the plaintiff was included as a joint pattatharar along with Sivanandi and Others. DW-1 further admitted that a joint patta stands in the name of his father Sivanandithevar and Others including the plaintiff. 52. From the evidence of DW-1, it is seen that after the sale deeds, the name of the plaintiff was included as a joint pattatharar along with Sivanandithevar. In all the documents Ex.B11 to Ex.B25, the first defendant admitted that the adangal accounts and chitta stand only in the name of Sivanandithevar Vakayara. It is to be noted that the Courts below have found that in all the adangal accounts, the suit property have been shown as Tharisu. Since the property has been shown as Tharisu in all the adangal accounts, it only indicates that the property is not under cultivation but it is vacant. Since the adangal extract in respect of vacant land is prepared by showing the names of pattatharars as persons holding the lands, the reference to Sivanandi Vakayara in adangal account will also include the plaintiff, whose name has been included in the joint patta along with Sivanandithevar. 53. Hence, the adangal extract produced by the defendants will not show the exclusive possession of defendants. When the suit property has been a vacant land, the Courts below ought to have held that the principle "possession follows title" can be applied in this case. Since patta and other documents showing the plaintiff's name as owner of the property is not disputed, the plaintiff's enjoyment on the basis of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 sale deeds can be certainly inferred. The defendants 1 to 4 have not produced any other independent evidence or documents except the chitta and adangal depicting the enjoyment of land by all the joint pattathars. 54. In the joint patta, the name of father of the defendants 1 to 4 is found as the first name. Thereafter, the names of defendants 1 to 4 and their sister Petchiammal is found. Apart from the name of plaintiff, the name of third parties to whom the father of plaintiff sold the property is also found in the joint patta. 55. Thereafter, the names of defendants 1 to 4 and their sister Petchiammal is found. Apart from the name of plaintiff, the name of third parties to whom the father of plaintiff sold the property is also found in the joint patta. 55. DW-1 further admitted in his evidence that his father has sold some other portion in S. No. 658 in favour of Muthukrishna Naidu and another person, whose names were also included in the joint patta. Hence, the conclusion of the lower appellate Court relying upon the documents Ex.B13 to Ex.B26 is erroneous and perverse. 56. The lower appellate Court has further observed that the plaintiff has not produced any adangal to prove his enjoyment. This Court has found that the reference to Sivanandithevar Vakayara in Exs. B13 to B26 would also include the plaintiff and therefore, Ex.B13 to Ex.B26 cannot be construed as documents to prove the exclusive possession of defendants 1 to 4 or their father in respect of the suit property. 57. The first question of law framed by this Court is by referring is Sections 91 and 92 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982. This Court is of the view that Sections 91 and 92 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982 is not applicable to the present case. In this case, admittedly, the suit property has been redeemed by the plaintiff out of the portion of consideration payable by the plaintiff's vendor. Hence, the redemption of mortgage by the plaintiff is only on behalf of his vendor. The mortgage was discharged with the money payable to the father of defendants 1 to 4. The plaintiff undertook to discharge the mortgage out of the money he retained out of sale consideration payable to his vendor under Ex.A1. 58. In such circumstances, the plaintiff has no right under Sections 91 and 92 of Transfer of Property Act, 1982. Except the first two question of law, all other questions of law raised in this second appeal are answered in favour of appellant. 59. The second question of law framed by this Court is not necessary, as the trial Court in favour of plaintiff has held that the suit is not barred by non joinder of one of the sister of defendants 1 to 4. The appellate Court has not framed any issue regarding non joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, this Court need not consider this issue. The appellate Court has not framed any issue regarding non joinder of necessary parties. Therefore, this Court need not consider this issue. However, as rightly held by the trial Court, the suit is not barred by non joinder of necessary parties. Other questions of law are answered in favour of plaintiff by holding that the suit for bare injunction without declaration of title is maintainable in this case particularly when the defendants are only the sons of plaintiff's vendor, who are estopped from questioning the title of plaintiff as they have no independent right to question the sale deeds during the life time of their father. 60. Having regard to the conclusions reached above, this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree of the Courts below are not legally sustainable in law and hence, they are set aside. The suit in O.S. No. 21 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Court Theni is decreed as prayed for. However, there shall be no order as to costs.