JUDGMENT C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. 1. This Second appeal had been filed by the plaintiffs who suffered an adverse decree both in O.S.No.438 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli and also in A.S.No.203 of 1998 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The appellants had filed the suit in O.S.No.438 of 1987 seeking permanent injunction against the respondents from interfering with their possession. 3. The case of the 1st respondent was that he has been in possession for the past 46 years and the appellants being close relatives had been permitted to occupy as tenants / lessees. 4. Mr. Raguvaran Gopalan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants insisted that once possession has been admitted by the respondents then naturally protection of such possession should be extended by the Court. It is the grievance of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Courts below have not appreciated that fact and negatived the relief sought by the appellants. However, it is seen from the records that the suit property is a Government Poromboke land and unfortunately the Revenue Authorities have not been made parties to the suit. Both the appellants and the respondents claim that they have been issued 'B' memo which signified their possession. Further, unfortunately the plaintiffs in their schedule have not given the actual measurement and the area which is in their occupation. They have appended a rough sketch along with the plaint and pleaded the Court to accept the rough sketch as part of the schedule. This has not been appreciated by both the Courts. Both the Courts refused to grant an order of injunction primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs have not proved their possession to their satisfaction and also on the ground that the very identity of the property itself is doubtful. Both the Courts have given concurrent findings on this facts. 5. The 2nd appeal has not been admitted. Notice of motion alone had been ordered on 04.10.2000. Injunction was also granted. The learned Counsel for the appellants states that pending the 2nd appeal, the appellants have regularised their possession and the Revenue Authorities have recognised their possession and documents to that effect had been issued to the appellants. 6. 5. The 2nd appeal has not been admitted. Notice of motion alone had been ordered on 04.10.2000. Injunction was also granted. The learned Counsel for the appellants states that pending the 2nd appeal, the appellants have regularised their possession and the Revenue Authorities have recognised their possession and documents to that effect had been issued to the appellants. 6. In view of that submission, though this second appeal is rejected on admission, since there no substantial questions of law arises for consideration, the appellants are granted liberty to institute a fresh suit, if so advised, by impleading the Revenue Authorities as party defendants and by relying the documents, which they claim, are now available with them. The findings given in O.S.No.438 of 1987 (I Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli) and A.S.No.203 of 1998 (I Additional Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli) and in the course of order today, should not be placed against the appellants or should not play upon the minds of the learned Judges before whom, if a fresh suit is instituted, the issues raised would be agitated. If a defence of limitation is taken up, the appellants may also take recourse to Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 7. With the above observations, the second appeal is rejected. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.