JUDGMENT : Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2001 passed in A.S.No.133 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2000, passed in O.S.No.727 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi. 2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the trial court. 3. Suit for permanent injunction. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that she is the owner of the suit properties as per the registered sale deed dated 22.09.1969 executed by her mother Naachammal and the properties described in the 'A' schedule property in the partition deed were given to the plaintiff and the plaintiff after the death of her parents has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the defendants are the neighboring land owners in S.F.No.50. There are common trees belonging to the plaintiff and the defendants situated on the eastern side pallam and the plaintiff is entitled to a common half share in the trees standing thereon and there are a number of neem trees, Karuvelam trees and other wild trees and also a Tamarind tree and in all the trees, the plaintiff is entitled to a common half right and the defendants by using influence, had obtained patta for the entire trees as if, the trees belong to them exclusively and also obtained permission from the authorities to cut the trees, but inasmuch as the plaintiff has also a common half share in the trees and as the defendants attempted to cut the trees illegally, according to the plaintiff, she had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate relief’s. 5. The case of the defendants in brief is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Their description of the suit properties is not correct. The case of the defendants in brief is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Their description of the suit properties is not correct. It is false to state that the plaintiff has got a common half right in the trees standing in the pallam and on the other hand, the defendants and their ancestors have planted various trees on their lands and accordingly, on their full growth, the defendants have approached the concerned authorities to cut down the trees and the authorities also granted permission to the defendants to cut the trees situated in their patta lands and the plaintiff cannot object to the same in any manner and the case of the plaintiff that the trees standing in the common pallam belonged to her and the defendants in common is false and the plaintiff has to establish her claim of title to the trees on the pallam and the plaintiff without seeking the relief of declaration in respect of the suit properties cannot maintain the suit and there is no cause of action of the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the plaintiff's case, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A1 has been marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to accept the plaintiff's case and granted the relief sought for. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been laid. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal the following substantial question of law was formulated for consideration. “Whether the unilateral and self serving recital relating to conveyance of 0.15 cents contained Ex.A1 settlement deed dated 22.09.1969 executed by the respondent's mother Papammal @ Nachammal alone, would prove her title over the said extent, without any supporting title documents and patta to prove her ownership over the same?” 9. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit properties are shown to be the trees standing on the common pallam, which according to the plaintiff belonged to her and the defendants in common. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction. The suit properties are shown to be the trees standing on the common pallam, which according to the plaintiff belonged to her and the defendants in common. Thus, the plaintiff claims half right in the trees standing on the pallam and the plaintiff claims right over the same, by way of the settlement deed dated 22.09.1969 marked as Ex.A1. The defendants have disputed the plaintiff's claim of title to the trees standing in the pallam as put forth in the plaint and according to the defendants, the trees had been raised by the defendants on their own in their lands and the plaintiff cannot lay a claim over the same in any manner and accordingly, it is the case of the defendants that they had been granted the necessary permission by the revenue authorities to cut down the trees and hence the suit laid by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. 10. Materials placed on record would go to disclose that in S.F.No.50, the defendants own 8.27 acres of land and the plaintiff owns 2.43 acres of land and the same could be seen from the documents marked as Exs.A1 and B1. This has been clearly admitted by the second defendant examined as D.W.1 and it is found that the partition deed marked as Ex.B1 is the parent document for the title deed dated 22.09.1969 relied upon by the plaintiff and marked as Ex.A.1. The Courts below have rightly assessed the recitals of the partition deed Ex.B1 as well the recitals of the settlement deed Ex.A1 and accordingly found that, as also admitted by D.W.1, the plaintiff owns 2.43 areas of land in S.F.No.50 and the defendants own 8.27 acres of the land in the above said survey field. 11. Now, according to the plaintiff, the trees standing in the common pallam belong to her as well as the defendants equally. The defendants have, as such, disputed the existence of common pallam in S.F.No.50. 11. Now, according to the plaintiff, the trees standing in the common pallam belong to her as well as the defendants equally. The defendants have, as such, disputed the existence of common pallam in S.F.No.50. However, when according to the defendants, Arumugam, the father of D.W.1 had been allotted the 'C' schedule properties, by way of Ex.B1 partition deed and on a perusal of the 'C' schedule properties, when it is noted that the extent of 8.27 acres of land allotted to Arumugam lies to the east of the share allotted to Kuppusamy Gounder, to the south of the share allotted to Kuppusamy and the lands of Ramasamy Gounder, to the north of pallam and Kanthasamy Gounder's land and to the west of the fourth item described in the 'B' schedule, it is thus found that the pallam has not been allotted to the sharers under the partition deed Ex.B1 and accordingly, the pallam has been shown only as the boundary to the shares allotted to the respective parties as above noted and unable to conceal the same, D.W.1 during the course of cross examination has admitted that, by way of Ex.B1 partition deed, his father had been allotted the 'C' schedule properties described therein and the said property is situated to the north of pallam and further clearly admitted that it is true to state that the Tamarind tree standing on the pallam belongs to the plaintiff. It is thus found that if really, the extent of 8.27 acres of land allotted to Arumugam by way Ex.B1 partition deed is inclusive of the pallam area, the pallam would not have been shown as the boundary to the properties allotted to Arugmugam given as above stated. Accordingly, it is seen that inasmuch, as the pallam had been earmarked to all the sharers to be enjoyed in common, it is seen that the trees standing thereon are also allowed to be enjoyed in common by all the sharers concerned. Accordingly, it is seen that D.W.1 has been forced to accept during the cross examination that the Tamarind tree standing in the pallam belongs to the plaintiff. Accordingly, it is seen that D.W.1 has been forced to accept during the cross examination that the Tamarind tree standing in the pallam belongs to the plaintiff. Accordingly, inasmuch as the trees standing in the pallam had been enjoyed in common by the plaintiff and her predecessors in interest, by way of Ex.A1 sale deed, it is seen that the plaintiff had been also settled half right in the pallam area and the Tamarind tree, then standing in the area under said document. It is thus found that, by way of Ex.A1 settlement deed the right enjoyed by the plaintiff's predecessors in interest over the standing trees on the pallam had been confirmed and accordingly, she had been conveyed half right in the pallam area and the Tamarind tree standing thereon. As rightly argued, as at that point of time, only the Tamarind tree was standing, the same alone has been mentioned in Ex.A1 settlement deed. Inasmuch as the other trees had grown up in due course of time, accordingly, it is found that the pallam area had not been allotted to any one exclusively and kept in common and accordingly only shown as boundary of the shares of the respective parties. It is thus seen that the defendants cannot be allowed to lay any exclusive of claim of title to the trees standing in the said area. 12. However, it is contended by the defendants that the revenue authority had granted permission to them to cut the trees in their lands by way of Ex.B2 order and therefore it is argued that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to lay a claim over the trees standing in the pallam area. However, as rightly put forth, on a perusal of Ex.B2, it is seen that the defendants had been granted permission to cut the trees standing only in their patta lands and not in the pallam area. However, as rightly put forth, on a perusal of Ex.B2, it is seen that the defendants had been granted permission to cut the trees standing only in their patta lands and not in the pallam area. When the defendants have failed to establish that in respect of the pallam region, they had acquired any exclusive title by way of Ex.B1 and they had been granted patta by the revenue authorities as such and when Ex.B2 order only speaks about the permission to cut the trees standing in the patta lands, by way of Ex.B2, it cannot be held that the defendants have exclusive right over the trees standing in the pallam or that the plaintiff does not own any right over the trees standing in the pallam area. In such view of the matter, Ex.B2 would be of no use to sustain the defence version to lay any exclusive claim over the trees in the pallam area or the rejection of the plaintiff's common right over the trees standing in the pallam area. As above seen, D.W.1 himself has admitted that the plaintiff has got right in the Tamarind tree standing in the pallam area. In such view of the matter, Ex.B2 as well as the plan marked as Ex.B2 would be no purpose to buttress the defence version and accordingly not placed reliance rightly by the Courts below. 13. When it is admitted that other than the plaintiff and defendants no one is entitled to any extent in S.F.No.50 and when it is further admitted that the plaintiff is entitled to 2.43 acres of land and the defendants are entitled to 8.27 acres of land in the above said survey field and when the pallam is not allotted any one exclusively and accordingly, shown to be in common and shown to be the boundary of the respective shares as above seen, the defendants cannot be allowed to prevent the plaintiff from enjoying the trees. The contention of the defendants that the plaintiff cannot lay any separate claim to an extent of 0.15 cents in S.F.No.50 by way of Ex.A1 settlement deed, however on a perusal of the recitals found in Ex.A1 settlement deed, as rightly argued, what had been conveyed or settled in favour of the plaintiff is only an extent of 2.43 acres of land as well as the common right in the pallam and the trees standing thereon. In such view of the matter, the contention put forth by the defendants that the plaintiff is attempting to lay a claim of more extent of land than to what she is entitled to by way of Ex.A1 settlement as such cannot be accepted in any manner. On the other hand, on a reading of the recitals found in Ex.A1 and B1 cumulatively as well as the admission of D.W.1 and the other materials placed or record, it is found that as rightly put forth by the plaintiff, the pallam area and the trees standing thereon belong only to the plaintiff and the defendants in common and in such view of the matter, it is found that the defendants cannot be permitted to cut the standing trees standing in the pallam area, on the basis of the order issued by the revenue authorities marked as Ex.B2. As above seen, by way of Ex.B2 order, the permission had been granted to the defendants only to cut the trees standing in their patta lands and not in the common pallam area. In such view of the matter, it is seen that the Courts below are justified in granting the equitable relief of permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff has clearly established her common right in the trees standing in the pallam region as well as the attempt made on the part of the defendants to cut the trees in the common area. It is thus found that the plaintiff has established her cause of action in all aspects for obtaining the relief sought for. 14. The counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff without seeking the relief of declaration cannot be allowed to maintain the suit simplicitor for bare injunction. It is thus found that the plaintiff has established her cause of action in all aspects for obtaining the relief sought for. 14. The counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff without seeking the relief of declaration cannot be allowed to maintain the suit simplicitor for bare injunction. However considering the facts and circumstances of the case, when the parties have agreed that each own a specific extent in S.F.No.50 as above discussed and the materials placed also would go to show that the pallam area is left in common inclusive of the trees standing thereon to the parties concerned as above determined, in such view of the matter, as the plaintiff's apprehension was only that the defendants are attempting to cut the trees standing in the pallam region to which the both parties are entitled equally, there is no need or necessity on the part of the plaintiff to seek for the relief of declaration as such in respect of the trees standing in the pallam region and in such view of the matter, the decisions relied upon by the defendants' counsel reported in 2017 (5) law weekly 490 [Velayudhan & others Vs. Mohammedkutty & others] and the decisions of this Court dated 05.01.2018 passed in S.A.No.1794 of 2001 [R.Padmanabhan Vs. K.Shanmugam] and dated 04.01.2018 passed in S.A.No.1177 of 2001 [Kaliga Raja alias Kalivaradhan Vs. Vaidyanathan], in my considered opinion, would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The defendants' counsel also placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 2000 (9) SCC 214 [Boramma Vs. Krishna Gowda and others] and 2011 (12) SCC 220 [Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami and another]. The principles of law outlined in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the case at hand. 15. For the reasons afore stated, the plaintiff has established her cause of action to institute the suit against the defendants and accordingly, it is seen that the Courts below are justified in granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for and the substantial question of law formulated in the second appeal is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff. 16. At the end, the second appeal fails and accordingly is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.