JUDGMENT : In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2003 passed in A.S.No.93 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem, reversing the judgment and Decree dated 31-07-2002 passed in O.S.No.877 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem. 2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court. 3. Suit for permanent injunction. 4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the they are the representatives of the residents of Ceylon Refugees Colony, of Singapuram village, Salem Taluk and all of them are having common interest in the subject matter of the suit and hence laying the suit in a representative capacity and the suit property originally belonged to Annakodi ammal, W/o, Palani Muthu Padayachi and they had no issues and Palani Muthu Padayachi married a second wife and through her begot the defendants 1 and 3 and during her life time, Annakodi ammal executed a registered power of attorney in respect of the suit property to one T.Jeyaraman, S/o, Thirumalai samy and on the basis of same, T.Jeyaraman plotted out the suit property as mentioned in the plaint plan and sold the same to the plaintiffs and the other refugees who had migrated to India and accordingly, the Government had extended concession to the plaintiffs from the payment of stamp duty for the purchase of the plots and accordingly 138 plots had been purchased by the plaintiffs and others under various sale deeds and some had constructed thatched sheds in the plots and while so, the defendants without any manner of right, started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property and left with no other alternative, according to the plaintiffs, they have been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs. 5. The case of the defendants in brief is that the suit laid by the plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to state that the plaintiffs have common interest in the subject matter of the suit and hence entitled to file the suit in a representative capacity. The suit laid by the plaintiffs in the representative capacity is not maintainable. It is false to state that the plaintiffs have common interest in the subject matter of the suit and hence entitled to file the suit in a representative capacity. The suit laid by the plaintiffs in the representative capacity is not maintainable. It is true that the suit property belonged to Annakodi ammal and it is true that Palani Muthu Padayachi married the second wife and through the second wife, he begot six daughters and one son and not the defendants 1 and 3 as alleged in the plaint. Annakodi ammal had no necessity to execute the power of attorney in favour of Jeyaraman as put forth in the plaint. The case of the plaintiff that she had executed the power of attorney in favour of Jeyaraman is false and it is false to state that he had plotted out the suit property and sold to 138 refugees including the plaintiffs and that some of them had put up thatched sheds in the plots purchased by them. No one is living in the suit property and it is only the defendants, who are enjoying the suit property and it is false to state that the Government had extended concession to the plaintiffs in the purchase of the plots and that the defendants are disturbing their possession and enjoyment. All the documents projected by the plaintiffs are concocted for the purpose of the case and it is only the defendants, who are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the suit property had never been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs at any point of time and the plaintiffs have no title to the suit property, possession and enjoyment as claimed in the plaint and it is only the third defendant, who has title to the suit property by virtue of a registered Will dated 29.04.1994 and in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and there is no cause of action for the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On the side of the defendants', D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Exs.B1 to B13 were marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked. 7. 6. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On the side of the defendants', D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Exs.B1 to B13 were marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were also marked. 7. 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 suit laid by the plaintiffs. On appeal, the first appellate court, on an appreciation of the materials placed and the submissions made, was pleased to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and by way of allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, decreed the suit as prayed for. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration. (i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable in law? (ii) Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court that the respondents/Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property and that they are in possession, are correct in law eventhough the evidence let in on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs failed to prove the same? (iii) Whether the Lower Appellate Courts is correct in law in casting the burden upon the appellants/defendants to prove their ownership of the suit property? 8. It is not in dispute that the suit property originally belonged to Annakodi ammal. It is not in dispute that Annakodi ammal 's husband married a second wife and through the second wife, he begot six daughters and one son. The plaintiffs claiming to be Ceylon Refugees seek title to the suit property by way of purchase of the same from one Jeyaraman, the power of attorney of Annakodi ammal. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Annakodi ammal gave a power of attorney to Jeyaraman and accordingly, Jeyaraman sold the suit property to various refugees like the plaintiffs and thus the plaintiffs and others have derived the title to the suit property. The defendants have impugned the alleged power of attorney said to have been executed by Annakodi ammal in favour of Jeyaraman and also challenged the alienations said to have been effected by Jeyaraman to the plaintiffs and others in respect of the suit property. The defendants have impugned the alleged power of attorney said to have been executed by Annakodi ammal in favour of Jeyaraman and also challenged the alienations said to have been effected by Jeyaraman to the plaintiffs and others in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs in their plaint have not stated as to, on what date Annakodi ammal had executed the power of attorney in favour of Jeyaraman. This aspect is very silent in the plaint. Even during the course of trial, the plaintiffs have not marked the original power of attorney in favour of T.Jeyaraman and on the other hand, only the copy of the power of attorney has come to be marked as Ex.A2. Inasmuch, as the defendants have thrown a serious challenge to Ex.A2, it is for the plaintiffs to establish the same with acceptable proof. The said Jeyaraman has not been examined and the reason for the same, as put forth by the plaintiffs is that he had expired. However, to establish that Jeyaraman had expired, his death certificate has not been produced. Be that as it may, on a persual of Ex.A2, it is found that it has been attested by some persons and one of the attestors of Ex.A2 has come to be examined as P.W.6. P.W.6 Rajamanickam would claim that he had attested the power of attorney marked as Ex.A2 and accordingly, to him following the sale agreement entered into between the Annakodi ammal and Jeyaraman, Jeyaraman had agreed to purchase the suit property for Rs.35,000/- and paid the sum of Rs.15,000/- in advance on the date of the sale agreement and paid the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- at the time of the execution of the power of attorney and accordingly, obtained the power of attorney from Annakodi ammal and that he had attested the said document. However, as regards the above plea put forth by P.W.6 that an agreement of sale had been entered into between Annakodi ammal and Jeyaraman for Rs.35,000/- and Jeyaraman paid Rs.15,000/- in advance and thereafter paid Rs.20,000/- at the time of the execution of the power of attorney, recitals pertaining to the same are not disclosed in Ex.A2 in any manner. If really, an agreement of sale had been really entered into between Annakodi ammal and Jeyaraman, as rightly argued, the said agreement of sale would have been marked in support of the plaintiffs' case. If really, an agreement of sale had been really entered into between Annakodi ammal and Jeyaraman, as rightly argued, the said agreement of sale would have been marked in support of the plaintiffs' case. But conveniently, the plaintiffs through P.W.6 would let in evidence that the said sale agreement had been destroyed at the time of the execution of the power of attorney. Atleast, the said agreement of sale should have been reflected in the power of attorney marked as Ex.A2. It is not been whispered in the plaint that an agreement of sale was entered into between Annakodi ammal and Jeyaraman prior to Ex.A2 transaction. The date of sale agreement and the terms of the sale agreement have not been disclosed. Reference about the same is conspicuously absent in Ex.A2 on any aspect. Therefore, the case of the plaintiffs, particularly, the evidence of P.W.6 that prior to Ex.A2, Annakodi ammal and Jeyaraman had entered into a sale agreement pertaining to the suit property for Rs.35,000/- as such cannot be believed and accepted. Assuming for the sake of arguments that Jeyaraman had parted with the sale consideration for the suit property as agreed to, nothing prevented Jeyaraman from obtaining the sale deed from Annakodi ammal in respect of the suit property. Why he should be satisfied only with the execution of power of attorney, when according to P.W.6, he had parted with the entire sale consideration agreed to even at the time of the execution of power of attorney has not been explained. Therefore, the plea of the plaintiffs as well as the evidence of P.W.6 that Annakodi ammal had executed the power of attorney in favour of Jeyaraman as such cannot be believed and accepted in any manner. Therefore, the plea of the plaintiffs as well as the evidence of P.W.6 that Annakodi ammal had executed the power of attorney in favour of Jeyaraman as such cannot be believed and accepted in any manner. With reference to the alleged plea of sale agreement, there is no plaint averments, no proof and the evidence of P.W.6 being not satisfactory with reference to the same and further when, there is no material at all to hold that Jeyaraman had been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property either pursuant to the sale agreement or pursuant to the execution of power of attorney and when the recitals pointing to the same are not entered into the power of attorney, it is found that the evidence of P.W.6 that he had attested the alleged power of attorney said to have been executed by Annakodi ammal in favour of Jeyaraman as such cannot be accepted in any manner. 9. The plaintiffs have also examined the scribe of the power of attorney Syed Salam as P.W.7 and according to P.W.7, it is he who had written the power of attorney marked as Ex.A2. However, during the course of cross examination, he has admitted that he does not know, as to, on what date the sale agreement had been entered into between Annakodi ammal and Jeyaraman and does not know, on what basis, the suit property belonged to Annakodi ammal and in the power of attorney, he had not mentioned anything about the sale agreement entered into between Annakodi ammal and Jeyaraman and also not mentioned the above sale consideration agreed to and also not mentioned about the advance paid as regards the same and also agreed that the contents of the power of attorney had not been read by the concerned parties and further admitted that he does not know, what was the price of the suit property at the time of the execution of the power of attorney and such being his evidence, when there is no material on record, to safely conclude that Annakodi ammal and Jeyaraman had agreed to entered into a sale agreement with reference to the sale of the suit property, in the light of the above evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, we cannot conclude that the power of attorney had been validly executed by Annakodi ammal in favour of Jeyaraman in respect of the suit property. Therefore, as rightly determined by the trial court, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish that Annakodi ammal had executed a power of attorney in favour of Jeyaraman as projected by the plaintiffs. The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 with reference to the same, is far from satisfactory and not reliable and trustworthy and hence, no safe credence could be attached to their evidence to uphold the power of attorney projected by the plaintiffs. 10. The plaintiffs have not placed any material to hold that pursuant to Ex.A2, Jeyaraman had taken possession of the suit property and endeavoured to convert them as plots and sold them to various parties including the plaintiffs. With reference to the above case of the plaintiffs, other than marking five sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs who had laid the suits, there is no material to show that the other refugees numbering 138 had purchased the plots from Jeyaraman and took possession of their respective plots. Even the plaintiffs, who had been examined as P.Ws.1 to 5, are unable to state as to the origin of title of the suit property and the factum of the sale transactions effected in a clear and acceptable manner and the trial court had assessed their evidence in the correct perceptive and found that P.Ws.1 to 5 are unable to throw any clear picture as to whether at all they had really purchased the plots from Jeyaraman, the power of attorney and such being their evidence, it is found that no safe reliance could be placed on the basis of their evidence to arrive at the conclusion that they had purchased the plots from the alleged power of attorney Jeyaraman as claimed. Equally, the plaintiffs have not placed acceptable and reliable materials to show that pursuant to their sale transactions, they had been put in possession and enjoyment of their respective plots. Even with reference to the same, there is no acceptable material forthcoming. Similarly, the case of the plaintiffs that 138 plots had been sold to various refugees is not borne out by any materials worth acceptance. When the plaintiffs numbering 5 are unable to throw a clear picture as to their vendors title to the suit property, their further claim that their vendor had sold similar such plots numbering 138 to various refugees, without identifying them or establishing the same cannot be acceptable readily. When the plaintiffs numbering 5 are unable to throw a clear picture as to their vendors title to the suit property, their further claim that their vendor had sold similar such plots numbering 138 to various refugees, without identifying them or establishing the same cannot be acceptable readily. That apart, the plaintiffs themselves have not established that they are Ceylon refugees as claimed by them and to point out the same, the plaintiffs have not placed their identity card, passport, visa etc., and therefore to contend that they are the refugees of Ceylon and purchased the property from the power of attorney as such cannot be accepted, particularly, when the plaintiffs have failed to establish that their vendors had a valid title to convey the suit property to them as plots. 11. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. However, with reference to their above said case, the plaintiffs themselves have admitted that at one point of time, the defendants took possession and enjoyment of the suit property and subsequently, they had been dispossessed by the Revenue authorities. In this connection, the plaintiffs have chosen to examine P.W.8, the Revenue Inspector and P.W.8 would claim that in the A register extract marked as Ex.A10, there is a reference about the dispossession and restoration of the property to the refugees and on that piece of evidence, it is contended by the plaintiffs that the defendants had been dispossessed. However, when it is found that the suit property is a property belonging to private parties, it does not stand to reason as to where is the scope of the Revenue officials to dispossess the defendants from the same. That apart P.W.8 is unable to establish as to on what basis the said endorsement had come to be entered by his predecessor and also pleaded ignorance about the same. Such being the evidence of P.W.8, it is found that on the basis of the alleged endorsement found in the said document, it cannot be considered that the defendants had been legally dispossessed from the suit property and that the property had been entrusted back to the refugees as such. Such being the evidence of P.W.8, it is found that on the basis of the alleged endorsement found in the said document, it cannot be considered that the defendants had been legally dispossessed from the suit property and that the property had been entrusted back to the refugees as such. Further, in the said endorsement, there is no reference as to who had been in the occupation of the suit property by trespass and who had been dispossessed by the Revenue Inspector and the other details of dispossession are not found in the said stray endorsement. Therefore, merely from the said endorsement found in Ex.A10, without any material in support of the same and when the suit property is a private property and if at all the defendants had allegedly trespassed into the same, the remedy available to the plaintiffs is only to lay a civil action, the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants had been dispossessed or removed of the encroachment by the Revenue authorities as such cannot be believed and accepted. Therefore, it is found that the alleged dispossession of the defendants from the suit property is unacceptable and thus it is found that it is only the defendants who continue to remain in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the above said endorsement found in Ex.A.10 is true, still following thereto, there is no material to hold that the defendants had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as pleaded by them in the plaint. In such view of the matter, it is found that absolutely, there is no material to hold that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property worth acceptance to grant the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. 12. In this suit, the plaintiffs claim the relief of permanent injunction on the basis of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants have vehemently impugned their alleged claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property as projected in the plaint. It is further found that even prior to the institution of the suit, claim of title was in issue between the parties concerned. The defendants have vehemently impugned their alleged claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property as projected in the plaint. It is further found that even prior to the institution of the suit, claim of title was in issue between the parties concerned. The defendants have thrown a serious challenge to the plaintiffs' claim of title to the suit property as well as their claim of the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In such view of the matter, as rightly put forth by the defendants' counsel, on the challenge put forth by the defendants to the alleged claim of title by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs should have amended the suit accordingly and sought for relief of declaration in respect of the suit property. However the plaintiffs have not done so. The plaintiffs have failed to establish their claim of possession and enjoyment of the suit property as pleaded. On the other hand, it is found that, it is only the defendants who are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have been dispossessed of the suit property by the Revenue authorities as above discussed cannot be countenanced. It is thus found that the plaintiffs have neither established their title nor possession and enjoyment of the suit property in any manner and despite the same, it is seen that the first appellate court without properly appreciating the materials placed on record, by way of unacceptable and improper reasonings and conclusions, proceed to accept the plaintiffs' case and granted the relief sought for by them. In such view of the matter, it is found that the above said determination of the first appellate court being only perverse and illogical cannot be allowed to sustain any further and liable to be set aside. In such view of the matter, it is found that the above said determination of the first appellate court being only perverse and illogical cannot be allowed to sustain any further and liable to be set aside. The first appellate court had granted the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs, despite the miserable failure on the part of the plaintiffs to establish their title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property as claimed in the plaint and on the other hand, it is found that as rightly argued, the first appellate court has shifted the burden on the defendants to prove their ownership of the suit property , failing to follow the cardinal principle of law that the plaintiffs, who are the suitors, should establish their case and in such view of the matter, it is found that the judgment and decree of the first appellate court are found to be against the well established principles of law and liable to be rejected in toto. The substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are accordingly answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants. 13. In support of his contentions, the defendants' counsel placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 2008 (6) CTC 237 [Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by Lrs & Others ] and the decision of this court dated 06.07.2015 passed in S.A.No.1570 of 2005 [M.Ramamoorthy and other Vs. R.Thirunavukkarasu]. The principles of law outlined in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case at hand. 14. In conclusion, the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2003 passed in A.S.No.93 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem, are set aside and the judgment and Decree dated 31-07-2002 passed in O.S.No.877 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Salem are confirmed. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.