JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the common judgments and decrees of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri, passed common judgments and decrees in A.S.Nos.4 & 11/2011 dated 10.04.2019 by allowing the appeals and reversing the common decrees and judgments of the O.S.Nos.1216 & 1218/1997 passed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottriyur dated 04.06.2010.) Common Judgment: (1) The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1216/1997 who is also the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.1218/1997 is the appellant in these second appeals. (2) The respondent in S.A.No.269/2022 as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.1216/1997 for permanent injunction restraining the appellant in these second appeals from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent-s property described in that suit schedule. (3) The appellant in these second appeals, as plaintiff in O.S.No.1218/1997, filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, namely Thiru Audhimoolam, Thiru Elumalai, Thiru Radhakrishnan, Thiru Sundaramoorthy, and the respondent in S.A.No.269/2022 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of item 1 in that suit schedule. Item 1, according to the appellant, is accessible only through item 2 and item 3 which are described roads. In the plaint, the appellant has admitted that they have encroached upon and taken possession of land, measuring an extent of 71,212 sq.ft. in S.No.618/G-3, described as suit 1st item which is classified as Kazhivelli Poramboke in Thiruvottiyur Village, Ambattur Taluk. The case of the appellant is that the necessary charges are being paid by the Trust to the Revenue Authority in respect of the building constructed in suit 1st item. (4) Even before the appellant filed the original suit in O.S.No.1218/1997, the respondent in S.A.No.269/2022 had filed O.S.No.1216/1997 praying for permanent injunction against the appellant. The respondent in S.A.No.269/2022 is the 5th respondent in S.A.No.270/2022. The parties are referred to hereafter as per their ranks in S.A.No.269/2022. (5) The suit property in O.S.No.1216/1997 is described as an extent of 2.72 acres comprised in S.A.No.618/A, at Sri Ramaswamy Mudhaliar Nagar, Thiruvottiyur Village. The suit property in this suit is a part of a larger property measuring to the extent of 10 acres and 17 cents purchased by the respondent under two Sale Deeds dated 24.09.1962 and 12.02.1963. (6) Before the Trial Court an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The suit property in this suit is a part of a larger property measuring to the extent of 10 acres and 17 cents purchased by the respondent under two Sale Deeds dated 24.09.1962 and 12.02.1963. (6) Before the Trial Court an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. Though, the Trial Court found that the appellant has encroached into the property of the respondent, the respondent is not entitled to a decree for permanent injunction in respect of the entire suit property as the entire property is still under his possession and there is no cause of action. Finding that a portion of the suit property is being used as a passage for ingress and egress and in interest of the appellant conducting prayers, the Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.1216/1997 and decreed the suit filed by the appellant in O.S.No.1218/1997. Aggrieved by the common judgment and decree of the Trial Court in both the suits, the respondent in S.A.No.269/2022 and the 5th respondent in S.A.No.270/2022 preferred appeals in A.S.No.4/2011 as against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1216/1997 and A.S.No.11/2011 as against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1218/1997. (7) The Lower Appellate Court, while reversing the common judgment and decrees of the Trial Court, held that the appellant, as plaintiff, in the suit O.S.No.1218/1997, is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and the respondent in S.A.No.269/2022, who is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.1216/1997, is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the common judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the above Second Appeals are filed by the appellant. (8) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Lower Appellate Court without hearing the arguments of the appellant-s counsel allowed both the appeals. Therefore the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court is not proper. Learned counsel submitted that the Lower Appellate Court failed to consider that the appellant is not claiming any title to the suit property and that a suit for injunction is maintainable. Since, the appellant is enjoying the suit property for free egress and ingress to his property, the respondent who is a stranger to the suit property cannot question the same. Learned counsel also submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has not considered the admitted facts or the evidence. Since, the appellant is enjoying the suit property for free egress and ingress to his property, the respondent who is a stranger to the suit property cannot question the same. Learned counsel also submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has not considered the admitted facts or the evidence. (9) Though the learned counsel for the appellant did not argue on any question of law, from the Memorandum of Grounds of appeals, it is seen that the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law: S.A.Nos.269 & 270/2022: a. Whether the Lower Court is correct to holding that the appellant having any right for getting the permanent injunction against the respondent? b. Whether the Lower Court below is correct in concluding that the permanent injunction issued in favour of the respondent is valid? (10) This Court has considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. From the findings of the Lower Appellate Court, this Court is able to see that the appellant has encroached upon Government Poramboke lands. It is also admitted that the encroachment by the appellant has extended to the patta land of the respondent in S.A.No.269/2022. The Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court have concurrently held that the appellant has encroached into the property of the respondent. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to the title of respondent over the suit property which is the subject matter of O.S.No.1216/1997. However, the Trial Court erroneously held that the respondent as plaintiff in O.S.No.1216/1997 is not entitled to a decree on the ground that they had suppressed the material fact that the appellant has encroached into the suit property. The respondent in S.A.No.269/2022 had purchased the suit property in O.S.No.1216/1997 and the title of the respondent in respect of the property covered by the Sale Deed is not an issue before the Lower Courts or before this Court. The Trial Court, relying upon the admission of PW2 that public uses the suit property when they come for prayers conducted by the appellant, erroneously decreed the suit based on the conclusion that the appellant was using only a portion of the suit property for a passage as ingress and egress. The Trial Court, relying upon the admission of PW2 that public uses the suit property when they come for prayers conducted by the appellant, erroneously decreed the suit based on the conclusion that the appellant was using only a portion of the suit property for a passage as ingress and egress. Without considering the commissioner-s report and the statement of the plaintiff witnesses and other evidence, the Trial Court jumped to the conclusion that the suit property is the property in which the appellant have the right to access even though the suit filed by the appellant is not for a declaration of any easmentary right. The Trial Court has granted a decree in favour of the appellant for injunction without proper discussion as to how the appellant is entitled to any easement to have access to the land that belongs to the respondent. The Lower Appellate Court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled to the relief for injunction. Since the respondent has also established their title to the property which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.1216/1997, this Court is unable to find any questions of law in both the appeals. Since, the Lower Appellate Court has given cogent reasons, this Court is unable to interfere with its findings. (11) In the result, the Second Appeals are devoid of merits and hence, dismissed. Consequently connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.