JUDGMENT : Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, dated 11.10.2000, made in A.S.No. 63 of 1999 passed by the Subordinate Judge at Sivakasi, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31.03.1999, made in O.S.No.196 of 1995 passed by the District Munsif at Sivakasi. 1. The defendants are the appellants herein. 2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.196 of 1995 before the District Munsif Court, Sivakasi for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court decreed the suit. As against the same, the defendants 2 to 5 filed A.S.No.63 of 1999, before the Sub-Court, Sivakasi. The learned Subordinate Judge concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the first appeal. As against the said judgment and decree, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants. 3. The plaintiffs have contended that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Subbammal and she had alienated the property in favour of the plaintiff on 06.03.1952 under Exhibit A1. The plaintiffs further contended that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same and a patta has also been granted in their favour under Exhibit A2. The plaintiffs further contended that they are paying kist receipts under Exhibit A3. 4. The defendants filed a written statement contending that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to the defendants' father namely Sriranga Thevar for an extent of 1 acre and 63 cents in Survey No.931/2. According to the defendants, the said property was purchased by Sriranga Thevar under Exhibit B2 on 30.09.1940. The defendants further contended that the plaintiffs' vendor, Subbammal was the concubine of the said Sriranga Thevar and she does not have any right title or possession over the suit schedule properties. The defendants further contended that there was no need and necessity for the said Sriranga Thevar to alienate the properties in favour of Subbammal under Exhibit B1 on 04.03.1950. The defendants further contended that since Subbammal did not derive any title under Exhibit B1, her alienation in favour of the plaintiffs under Exhibit A1 on 06.03.1952 is not legally sustainable. The defendants further contended that there was no need and necessity for the said Sriranga Thevar to alienate the properties in favour of Subbammal under Exhibit B1 on 04.03.1950. The defendants further contended that since Subbammal did not derive any title under Exhibit B1, her alienation in favour of the plaintiffs under Exhibit A1 on 06.03.1952 is not legally sustainable. The fact that the plaintiff has not produced the original sale deed standing in the name of the Subbammal will clearly establish that Subbammal did not have any right or title to the suit schedule properties, at the time of her alienation under Exhibit B1, dated 04.03.1950. The defendants further contended that a portion of the suit schedule property was acquired by the Government and the defendants have received the compensation in L.A.O.P. No.79 of 1983 which is marked as Exhibit A4. Hence, the plaintiffs prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The trial Court came to a finding that one Sriranga Thevar had purchased an extent of 1.63 acres under Exhibit B2, dated 30.09.1940 from one Karupayee Ammal. Hence, the entire extent is a self acquired property of Sriranga Thevar. The trial Court also arrived at a finding that the said Sriranga Thevar had executed a registered sale deed on 04.03.1950 under Exhibit B1 in favour of one Subbammal for an extent of 1.07 acres. The said Subbammal has executed Exhibit A1 sale deed on 06.03.1952 in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the trial Court, the contention of the defendants that Subbammal did not have any right title or interest over the suit schedule property is not legally sustainable and the same was rejected. The trial Court also found that the plaintiffs have mutated the revenue records in their favour and they are in possession of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court also found that the revenue records produced on the side of the defendants namely Exhibit B4 series and Exhibit B5 does not relate to the suit schedule properties. The trial Court also found that the patta passbook issued in favour of the defendants under Exhibit B3 on 16.12.1973 for the entire extent of 1.63 acres is not correct, in view of Exhibits B1 and A1 sale deeds. In view of the above said findings, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. 6. The trial Court also found that the patta passbook issued in favour of the defendants under Exhibit B3 on 16.12.1973 for the entire extent of 1.63 acres is not correct, in view of Exhibits B1 and A1 sale deeds. In view of the above said findings, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. 6. The First Appellate Court also considered the sale deeds namely, Exhibits A1, B1 and B2 and also the revenue records produced on the side of the plaintiffs and the defendants and arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs' vendor, Subbammal had title to execute Exhibit A1 sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court also concurred with the findings of the trial Court that the possession is with the plaintiffs and the revenue records produced by the defendants are not legally acceptable documents. As against the concurrent findings, the present second appeal has been filed. 7. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1. Have not the Court below erred in Law in entertaining a suit for bare injunction when the possession of the suit property is with the appellants/defendants right through together with the deed of conveyance purportedly made in favour of the deceased first plaintiff? 2. Have not the Courts below erred in confusing themselves as to the patta number without adverting to the history of the suit property as clearly set out by the appellants/defendants and erroneously decreeing the suit for bare injunction?” 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the sale deed executed by his father, Sriranga Thevar in favour of Subbammal under Exhibit B1 is only a sham and nominal document. The said document has not come into force. In fact, the original of Exhibit B1 has been produced on the side of the defendants to establish the fact that Exhibit B1 sale deed has not been acted upon. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that during his lifetime, Sriranga Thevar continued to enjoy his suit schedule properties and after his death the defendant who is the son of the said Sriranga Thevar is enjoying the suit schedule properties. The learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that if really Sriranga Thevar had alienated the suit schedule properties in favour of Subbammal under Exhibit B1, Subbammal would have mutated the revenue records in her favour. The learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that if really Sriranga Thevar had alienated the suit schedule properties in favour of Subbammal under Exhibit B1, Subbammal would have mutated the revenue records in her favour. He further contended that the plaintiff claims that he has purchased the suit schedule properties from Subbammal under Exhibit A1 on 06.03.1952. However, the plaintiff has chosen to mutate the revenue records in his favour only in the year 1994 under Exhibit A2. This would create the suspicion whether really Exhibit B1 had come into force. The learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that the plaintiffs made a claim over a portion of the suit schedule properties during land acquisition proceedings. However, the said claim was rejected by the Sub-court, Srivilliputhur in L.A.O.P. No.79 of 1983 which is marked as Exhibit A4. The learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that the defendants have disputed the title of the plaintiff and hence, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. Hence, he prayed for allowing the second appeal and for dismissal of the suit. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs had contended that the original owner of the property namely, Sriranga Thevar had alienated the suit schedule properties in favour of Subbammal under Exhibit B1 and in turn she has executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under Exhibit A1. The plaintiff has produced Exhibit A2 patta passbook, A3 tax receipt to establish his possession over the suit schedule properties. He further contended that the award in the land acquisition proceedings which has been marked as Exhibit A4 confirms the title of the plaintiffs with regard to 1.07 acres. When the defendant has not produced any rival document claiming title over the suit schedule properties, the suit for bare injunction without a prayer for declaration of title is maintainable. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the second appeal. 10. I have carefully considered the submission on either side. 11. The plaintiffs have claimed title based upon Exhibit B1 sale deed in favour of Subbammal and Exhibit A1 sale deed executed by said Subbammal in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have disputed Exhibit B1 sale deed on the ground that, it is a sham and nominal document. 10. I have carefully considered the submission on either side. 11. The plaintiffs have claimed title based upon Exhibit B1 sale deed in favour of Subbammal and Exhibit A1 sale deed executed by said Subbammal in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have disputed Exhibit B1 sale deed on the ground that, it is a sham and nominal document. A perusal of the written statement would establish that the defendants have not pleaded that Exhibit B1 is a sham and nominal document. The defendants have only stated that the vendor of the plaintiff was having illicit relationship with Sriranga Thevar and the said Sriranga Thevar did not have any necessity to alienate the suit schedule properties. The sale deed under Exhibit B1 has not been attacked on any legally acceptable grounds. Hence, we can safely come to a conclusion that Exhibit B1 is a validly executed document in favour of Subbammal for an extent of 1.07 acres. It is also not in dispute that the said Subbammal has executed the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs under Exhibit A1. Based upon these two documents, the plaintiffs are claiming title to the suit schedule properties. On the other hand, the defendants have not produced any rival document or created a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs. The defendants have simply contended that Exhibit B1 sale deed is a sham and nominal document. When the defendants have not produced any rival document or created a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs, the suit for bare injunction without prayer for declaration of title is perfectly maintainable. 12. The plaintiffs have filed Exhibit A2 patta passbook to establish their possession over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs have also produced Exhibit A3 kist receipt. A perusal of Exhibit A4 which is an award passed in the L.A.O.P proceedings will clearly establish that the plaintiffs title over 1.07 acres has been confirmed in the land acquisition proceedings and compensation was awarded to the defendants for the extent of the property that was not covered under Exhibit A1 and compensation was awarded to the defendants, on the ground that the present plaintiffs property was not acquired by the Government. The defendants have produced Exhibit B3 patta passbook, dated 16.12.1973. The defendants have produced Exhibit B3 patta passbook, dated 16.12.1973. The said patta passbook has been issued in favour of Sriranga Thevar for the entire extent of 1.63 acres when he has already sold 1.07 acres under Exhibit B1 on 04.03.1950. Hence, the said document cannot be relied upon by the defendants to establish title over the suit schedule properties. Exhibit B4 series relates to kist receipts for various periods. Except two documents in the said series, other documents relate to a different patta number and hence, the Courts below were right in rejecting the said documents. The learned Counsel for the appellants had further contended that there is an endorsement at the back of Exhibit B1 sale deed that the Subbammal has re-conveyed the property in favour of Sriranga Thevar. In fact there is no pleading in the written statement to the said effect. That apart, a mere endorsement on the registered document will not make the document invalid or re-convey the property in favour of the vendor. There is no evidence whatsoever to the effect that who made such an endorsement. Hence, the said contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is not legally sustainable. 13. In view of the above said discussion, the substantial questions of law are answered as follows: 1. The defendants have not produced any rival document or created a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs. Hence, the present suit by the plaintiffs for bare injunction without a prayer for declaration of title is perfectly maintainable. The plaintiffs have established their possession over the suit schedule properties by filing Exhibits B2 to B4. On the other hand, the revenue records produced on the side of the defendants namely Exhibits B3 and B5 are not in consonance with the title deeds and hence, not legally acceptable. 2. The Courts below have properly appreciated the suit patta number has 344 after going through the revenue records. The Courts below have not erred in not properly appreciated the patta number of the suit schedule properties. 14. In view of the above said discussion, both the substantial questions of law are answered as against the appellants. Therefore, the second appeal stands dismissed. No costs.