JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.11.2016, passed in A.S.No.39 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 04.07.2014, passed in O.S.No.240 of 2012, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam. 2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The plaintiff laid the suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction, claiming that she had purchased the suit property by way of a registered sale deed, dated 13.11.1992 and the defendant approached her for the sale of the suit property in the year 1995 and accordingly, the sale agreement, dated 25.01.1995 had come to be executed between the parties for the sale consideration of Rs.51,500/- and the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as advance and though the time of six months had been fixed for the payment of the balance sale consideration, the defendant failed to pay the said amount and on the other hand, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and resultantly, according to the plaintiff, she had levied the suit, in O.S.No.266 of 1997, against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Valangaiman and the said suit ended in a decree in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant laid O.S.No.173 of 1997 against the plaintiff seeking the relief of specific performance by enforcing the sale agreement, dated 25.01.1995 and in the said suit, a decree had been passed in favour of the defendant, on 27.07.1998, and the defendant preferred the execution proceedings and without serving notice on the plaintiff, it is stated that the defendant had obtained the sale deed from the Court in his favour in respect of the suit property and the plaintiff is enjoying the suit property by putting up a thatched shed and also doing business, through her agent, and accordingly, resisting the defendant's action in grabbing the suit property, based on the above said sale deed and only thereafter, the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant in the execution proceedings and the defendant had not taken the possession of the suit property, through the Court process and therefore, in order to prevent the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property, without due process of law, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for the appropriate relief. 4. 4. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the plaintiff has not come out with the clean hands and based on the decree obtained by the defendant in O.S.No.173 of 1997, laid for specific performance and the defendant had obtained the sale deed, through the Court process and accordingly, the defendant had become the owner of the suit property and the same cannot be disputed by the plaintiff and as per the decree passed in O.S.No.173 of 1997, based on the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant, the defendant had obtained the possession of the suit property and enjoying the same and thereafter, the defendant had settled the suit property in favour of his son Kumaravelu, by a deed of settlement, dated 18.05.2012 and also contended that since the date of the sale agreement, the suit property has been in his possession and enjoyment and after the settlement deed, dated 18.05.2012, his son is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, the suit laid by the plaintiff, without impleading his son, is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties and when according to the plaintiff, she has already obtained the relief of permanent injunction against him in O.S. No. 226 of 1997, there is no need for the plaintiff to seek the same relief in the present suit and therefore, the present suit is hit by the principle of res judicata and it is only the defendant's son who is enjoying the suit property and the plaintiff is not in India and the suit property is not in her possession and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. 6. The Trial Court, on a consideration of the materials placed on record by the respective parties, both oral and documentary and the submissions made, was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. 6. The Trial Court, on a consideration of the materials placed on record by the respective parties, both oral and documentary and the submissions made, was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Impugning the same, the defendant preferred the first appeal and the First Appellate Court, on a consideration of the materials placed by the respective parties and the averments made, was pleased to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and thereby, by way of allowing the first appeal preferred by the defendant, dismissed the suit preferred by the plaintiff. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred. 7. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a sale agreement in respect of the suit property on 25.01.1995 and following the same, inasmuch as, according to the defendant, the plaintiff had failed to come forward to execute the sale deed in his favour, seeking for enforcement of the sale agreement afore stated, it is found that the defendant preferred O.S.No.173 of 1997 and the said suit had ended in a decree in favour of the defendant. Thereafter, it is found that the defendant, through the Court process, had also obtained the sale deed in his favour in respect of the suit property on 28.12.2006, which could be evidenced from the sale deed marked as Ex.B1. Thus, it is found that the defendant has become the owner of the suit property and entitled to the same. 8. Now, according to the plaintiff, though the sale agreement had been entered into between the parties, it is only she who continue to remain in the suit property and based on the sale agreement, the defendant attempted to interfere with her possession, hence, she had been forced to levy the suit in O.S.226 of 1997 and the said suit had ended in her favour and the documents pertaining to the same are marked as Exs.A2 and A3. However, when it is noted that after the institution of O.S.No.226 of 1997, when the suit laid by the defendant in O.S.No.173 of 1997 had ended in a decree in favour of the defendant and thereafter, the sale deed having also been executed in favour of the defendant by the Court on 28.12.2006, in respect of the suit property, it is found that it is only the defendant who is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff cannot lay any claim of title to the suit property as such. 9. However, the argument has been put forth by the plaintiff's counsel that inasmuch as the plaintiff continues to be in possession of the suit property, even assuming for the sake of argument, that the sale deed had come to be executed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property, unless she is duly evicted from the suit property in the manner known to law, the defendant is not entitled to interfere with her possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, she should be granted the relief of permanent injunction on the above said lines. 10. Countering the above said case of the plaintiff, it is contended by the defendant that based on the sale deed executed by the Court in his favour marked as Ex.B1, he had obtained the possession of the suit property and when it is seen that the suit property is only a vacant site as described in the plaint and accordingly, furthermore, when it is also noted that the defendant had been empowered to obtain the possession of the suit property directly or through the Court process and admittedly, when the title in respect of the suit property stands transferred in favour of the defendant through the Court process as above discussed, as determined by the First Appellate Court on the proposition that possession follows title, it is seen that it is only the defendant who is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property following the execution of the sale deed in his favour. Though the plaintiff claims that there is a thatched shed in the suit property and she has been running a brick kiln in the suit property, through her agent, however, with referent to the same, there is no material worth acceptance put forth by the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff claims that there is a thatched shed in the suit property and she has been running a brick kiln in the suit property, through her agent, however, with referent to the same, there is no material worth acceptance put forth by the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to put forth inconsistent case, particularly, having described the suit property only as a vacant site, she cannot be allowed to state that there is a thatched shed and that she is doing business in the suit property. Be that as it may, when there is no material on the part of the plaintiff evidencing her claim of possession and enjoyment of the suit property, as such, and when the plaintiff is found to be not in India and the suit laid by the plaintiff is found to be laid only through her agent, the claim of the plaintiff that she is enjoying the suit property, through her agent, as such, cannot be countenanced sans any reliable and convincing material pointing to the same as determined by the First Appellate Court. 11. Though some reliance is projected by the plaintiff upon Ex.A7 to A9, as rightly determined by the First Appellate Court, when according to the admission of P.W.1 that no brick kiln business is run after 1997-1998, the documents projected and marked as Exs.A7 to A9, having come into existence in respect of the above said business, during 2002-2003 and 2011-2012, it is seen that on the basis of the above said documents, the plaintiff cannot be held to be in possession of the suit property and doing business therein as put forth in the plaint. 12. 12. When it is seen that it is only the defendant who has title to the suit property and when there is no material placed on record worth acceptance to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as claimed and on the other hand, when from the case projected by the defendant and the materials placed, it is seen that the defendant having obtained the sale deed, through Court process and after taking possession of the suit property, being a vacant site, had settled the same in favour of his son by a deed of settlement, dated 18.05.2012, marked as Ex.B2 and thereafter, the Patta had come to be effected in favour of his son marked as Ex.B4, in all, it is seen that it is only the defendant who is found to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, as determined by the First Appellate Court. 13. When according to the plaintiff, she has already obtained the order of injunction in her favour against the defendant in O.S.No.266 of 1997 and if really the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, it does not stand to the reason as to why she seeks the same relief by instituting the present suit for claiming the relief of injunction against the defendant. The same itself would go to show that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, however, somehow or the other, had obtained the decree in O.S.No.266 of 1997 and on the other hand, knowing fully well that she would be unable to enforce the same, accordingly, it is found that she has come forward with the present suit seeking the same relief and the above said aspect of the matter has also been rightly determined by the First Appellate Court, however, though holding that the present suit is not barred by res judicata, the First Appellate Court has also raised the suspicion in the conduct of the plaintiff in filing the present suit. 14. 14. In the light of the above factors, it is found that the First Appellate Court, on a proper appreciation of the materials placed on record by the respective parties, both oral and documentary and also considering the various contentions put forth by the respective parties, as regards the subject matter, both factually as well as legally and applying the principles of law governing the same in the right manner by relying upon the authorities referred to by it, is found to have rightly dismissed the plaintiff's suit by entertaining the first appeal preferred by the defendant. 15. In such view of the matter, no interference is warranted to disturb the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court, accordingly, no substantial question of law is found to be involved in this second appeal and resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.