JUDGMENT : Dr. G. Radha Rani, J. 1. This Second Appeal is filed by the appellants - appellants - plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2009 passed in A.S. No.156 of 2007 by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan in dismissing the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2007 passed in O.S. No.14 of 2003 by the Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan. 2. The parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed before the trial court. 3. The plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas of land in Survey No. 225 in Sailampoor shivar of Suleman Nagar Village of Kotagir Mandal, Nizamabad District. 4. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were the owners and possessors of dry agricultural land to an extent of Ac.00-20 guntas each abutting each other in one single block in Survey No. 225. They purchased the suit lands under respective registered sale deeds, both dated 11.11.2002 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 5,000/- each from its original owner A.Bhavani Shankar Rao. The suit lands were mutated in the names of the plaintiffs in the revenue records. The defendant No. 1's family used to run a Khandsari Sugar Mill under the name and style of 'Om Khandsari Sugar Mill' situated to the further south of the suit lands. The said Khandsari Sugar Mill was defunct and was not in use since more than 17 years. The owners of the said mill were using the open land of Seetharamaswamy towards south and west of the suit lands for drying the cane pulp, when the said mill was functioning. Since then, the said lands and the suit lands remained fallow, on which some trees had grown up. The defendant No. 2 was the watchman of the said Sugar Mill. On 03.02.2003 at about 11:00 AM, some laborers under the supervision of defendant No. 2 began to cut down the trees grown on the suit lands. The plaintiffs having come to know rushed to the suit lands. With the help of neighboring people, they managed to stop defendant No. 2 and his laborers from proceeding with illegal felling of the trees on the suit lands. When questioned, the defendant No. 2 stated that he was doing so as per the instructions of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs gave a complaint to the Police Kotagir. With the help of neighboring people, they managed to stop defendant No. 2 and his laborers from proceeding with illegal felling of the trees on the suit lands. When questioned, the defendant No. 2 stated that he was doing so as per the instructions of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs gave a complaint to the Police Kotagir. But as the matter was involving the possessory rights of the plaintiffs, which the defendant No. 2 infringed as the agent of defendant No. 1, the suit was filed against both of them for a decree of perpetual injunction to safeguard their interest. 5. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement submitting that defendant No. 1 was the nephew of one Sri. Ram Swaroop, S/o. Sri Devaram Agarwal, R/o. Suleman Nagar Village of Kotagir Mandal, who was at present residing at Hyderabad. The defendant No. 2 was the watchman of the said uncle of defendant No. 1. Mr. Ram Swaroop was the owner of the Khandsari known as Om Khandsari Sugar Mill, which was situated on the southern side of the suit land. The said factory was not functioning and the building of the said factory was in dilapidated condition. The land measuring Ac.1-10 guntas comprised in Survey No. 224 would fall on the northern side of the factory. The said land of Ac.1-10 guntas comprised in Survey No. 224 of Suleman Nagar of Kotagir Mandal was purchased by the uncle of defendant No. 1 Sri Om Prakash under a registered sale deed document No. 5801 of 1971 dated 24.07.1971 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- from its previous owner and possessor M/s. Deccan Plantation Private Limited, Anand Nagar through its Special Director and General Power of Attorney Sri. Laxmi Chand, S/o.Kunvarji, R/o.Anand Nagar. Since the date of purchase, the uncle of defendant No. 1 being the absolute owner was in possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The defendants 1 and 2 were looking after the land on behalf of Sri Om Prakash. The plaintiffs having knowledge that Sri Om Prakash was the owner and possessor of the suit land malafidely failed to implead the said Om Prakash as defendant in the suit filed by them. The plaintiffs with an ulterior motive filed the suit against unconcerned persons. The plaintiffs were not only guilty of non-joinder of necessary parties but also guilty of misrepresenting the real facts. The plaintiffs with an ulterior motive filed the suit against unconcerned persons. The plaintiffs were not only guilty of non-joinder of necessary parties but also guilty of misrepresenting the real facts. The plaintiffs having colluded with their vendor got registered Ac.1-00 guntas of land in Survey No. 224 of Suleman Nagar showing it to be as land in Survey No. 225. They had shown the boundaries of Survey No. 224 as that of the land in Survey No. 225. The boundaries of land in Survey No. 224 measuring to an extent of Ac.1-10 guntas situated at Suleman Nagar were as under: East: Passage for Om Khandsari Sugar Mill. West: Open site of Hind Khandsari Mill. North: Boundary of PWD Road leading to Kotagir. South: Om Khandsari Mill. Mr. Om Prakash was in possession of the land covered under the said boundaries and the defendants 1 and 2 were looking after the land on behalf of Mr. Om Prakash. Mr. Om Prakash with an intention to go ahead with the construction of the Om Khandsari Sugar Mill collected bricks and kept on the land. The suit land was in possession and enjoyment of the uncle of defendant No. 1. Since the date of its purchase, the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land more specifically shown under the boundaries. The plaintiffs were malafidely trying to misuse the process of law to usurp the suit land of the uncle of defendant No. 1 and they were not entitled for the discretionary relief and prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial court framed the issues as follows: (i) Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? (ii) Whether the suit schedule boundaries are true and correct? (iii) Whether the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land on 03.02.2003? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to perpetual injunction as prayed for? (v) To what relief? 7. The plaintiff No. 1 was examined as PW.1 and the plaintiff No. 2 was examined as PW.2. The farm labor of plaintiffs 1 and 2 was examined as PW.3. An Advocate Commissioner appointed in the suit was examined as PW.4. Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 was examined as DW.1 and his uncle Sri. The farm labor of plaintiffs 1 and 2 was examined as PW.3. An Advocate Commissioner appointed in the suit was examined as PW.4. Exs.A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 was examined as DW.1 and his uncle Sri. Ram Swaroop was examined as DW.2. The registered sale deed document bearing No. 5801 of 1971 dated 24.07.1971 was marked as Ex.B1. The Advocate Commissioner's report, warrant, notices dated 13.06.2003 and 27.06.2003, report of Mandal Surveyor, the panchanama of Mandal Surveyor and the tonch map of Survey Nos. 224 and 225 were marked as Exs.C1 to C7 respectively. 8. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs on 25.04.2007. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The appeal was heard by the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan and vide judgment and decree dated 23.01.2009 in A.S. No.15 of 2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by the said judgments of the courts below, the plaintiffs preferred this Second Appeal raising the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the trial court as well as the Lower Appellate Court were justified in dismissing the suit and the appeal, when a clear finding was given by the Mandal Surveyor that the appellants were in possession of the suit land in Survey No. 225? (ii) In view of Exs.A1 to A9, which would establish the title of the appellants - plaintiffs over the suit lands, whether the trial court and the Lower Appellate Court were justified in dismissing the claims of the appellants - plaintiffs? (iii) Whether the trial court and the Lower Appellate Court properly appreciated the evidence on record with respect to the land of Ac.1-00 acre in Survey No. 225, wherein the appellants got title over the said land by virtue of registered sale deeds? (iv) Whether the trial court and the Lower Appellate Court properly appreciated the Advocate Commissioner's Report and the Mandal Surveyor's report, in which the possession of the appellants was proved and the same was not challenged by the defendants? (v) Whether the findings of the trial court and the First Appellate Court were perverse? (iv) Whether the trial court and the Lower Appellate Court properly appreciated the Advocate Commissioner's Report and the Mandal Surveyor's report, in which the possession of the appellants was proved and the same was not challenged by the defendants? (v) Whether the findings of the trial court and the First Appellate Court were perverse? (vi) Whether both the courts below properly appreciated the evidence, in view of the documents of title of the plaintiffs followed by their possession over the suit land? (vii) Whether a pure question of law which does not require any re-appreciation of evidence can be permitted to be urged even for the first time in Second Appeal? 9. The Second Appeal was admitted on 25.06.2010 on the above substantial questions of law. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants purchased the lands to an extent of Ac.00-20 guntas each in Survey No. 225 situated at Sailampur Shivar of Kotagir Mandal, Nizamabad District through registered sale deeds dated 11.11.2002 from its original owner A.Bhavani Shankar Rao and filed the sale deeds and marked them as Exs.A1 and A4 respectively. But the courts below without considering the said evidence in a proper manner dismissed the claim of the appellants. The concerned Mandal Revenue Officer of Kotagir issued pattedar pass books to the appellants, which would show that the appellants were in possession of the suit land to an extent of Ac.1-00 gunta and inspite of the said evidence, the courts below dismissed the suit as well as the appeal without appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective. As per the orders of the trial court, the Mandal Surveyor along with the Advocate Commissioner, appointed for this purpose had gone and demarcated the suit land in the presence of both the parties and their advocates and prepared the panchanama. The Advocate Commissioner as well as the Mandal Surveyor submitted their report. All the documents exhibited before the trial court would prove that the appellants were in possession of the suit lands. The courts below without considering these aspects negatived the contention of the appellants, which was contrary to the evidence on record and hence liable to be set aside. The Advocate Commissioner as well as the Mandal Surveyor submitted their report. All the documents exhibited before the trial court would prove that the appellants were in possession of the suit lands. The courts below without considering these aspects negatived the contention of the appellants, which was contrary to the evidence on record and hence liable to be set aside. The report of the Mandal Surveyor was marked as Ex.C5 and the panchanama conducted by him was marked as Ex.C6 and the tonch map of Survey Nos. 224 and 225 was marked as Ex.C7. All these documents would clearly show that the appellants were in possession of the suit land. The trial court granted ad interim injunction in favor of the appellants, which was also subsequently confirmed by the trial court after filing the counter by the defendants till the disposal of the suit. The respondents - defendants neither challenged the Advocate Commissioner's Report nor the report of the Mandal Surveyor, wherein a categorical finding was given that the appellants were in possession of the suit land. 11.1. He further contended that that the First Appellate Court had not properly framed the points for consideration. Without recording whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property or not, the suit could not be disposed of. Except answering issue No. 2, the First Appellate Court had not answered all the issues framed by the trial court and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (Dead) by LRs. (2005) 10 SCC 243 on the aspect that the first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on law. In the first appeal, parties had the right to be heard both on questions of law as well as on facts and the First Appellate Court was required to address itself to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. He also relied upon the judgment of the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in Ch.Rukma Reddy and Others v. K.Dharma Reddy and Others 2004 (3) ALD 772 on the aspect that framing of points for consideration in an appeal is an obligation imposed under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. Failure to frame points by an Appellate Court may prove to be fatal for the outcome of the appeal. 12. Failure to frame points by an Appellate Court may prove to be fatal for the outcome of the appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the defendants denied the very existence of the suit schedule property in the written statement itself. No plan was enclosed to Ex.A1 sale deed. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs. As such, a simple suit for injunction was not maintainable and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others (2008) 4 SCC 594 . He also contended that it was the defendant, who filed the petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for localization of the suit schedule property. The Advocate Commissioner's report was not in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had to prove the interference by the defendants. No cause of action was there to file the suit. No interference was proved as per the judgments of the courts below. No substantial questions of law would arise in this matter. No pahanies for the relevant period showing cultivation was filed by the appellants. Both the courts below observed that there was a boundary dispute between the parties. Hence, the suit for simple injunction is not maintainable. The revenue records would not create or extinguish title over the property nor has any presumptive value on the title and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (Dead) through Legal Representative v. Arthur Import and Export Company and Others (2019) 3 SCC 191 . 13. On considering the contentions of both the learned counsel and the substantial questions of law raised by the appellants, which were admitted by this Court, the same can be confined to the aspects that: (1) Whether a simple suit for injunction is maintainable or a suit for declaration of title is required to be filed by the appellants when there is a boundary dispute? (2) Whether there is any perversity in the judgments of the courts below in appreciating the evidence or framing the points for consideration or answering any issues? 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and Others AIR 2023 SC 4794 , held that: "32. (2) Whether there is any perversity in the judgments of the courts below in appreciating the evidence or framing the points for consideration or answering any issues? 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and Others AIR 2023 SC 4794 , held that: "32. In a second appeal, the jurisdiction of the High Court being confined to substantial question of law, a finding of fact is not open to challenge in second appeal, even if the appreciation of evidence is palpably erroneous and the finding of fact incorrect as held in V. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar [V. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar, AIR 1963 SC 302 ]. An entirely new point, raised for the first time, before the High Court, is not a question involved in the case, unless it goes to the root of the matter." (Emphasis Supplied) "... if the findings returned are to be upturned on perversity, the same should unmistakably be reflected from record. If this is not so done, the Court of first appeal being the "final Court of fact" would be reduced to a mere saying, of no actual effect. After all, a second appeal is not a "third trial on facts", and so, for re-appreciation of evidence to be justified, and for the same to be required as well as being demonstrably, at a different threshold from merely, a "possible different view", perversity or the other conditions of "no evidence" or "inadmissible evidence" ought to be urged, and subsequently, with the Court being satisfied on the arguments advanced, of such a possibility, the Court would then, proceed to call for the record. That is to say that accepting the argument of perversity merely on the submissions made and not having appreciated the record, would be unfair to the Court of first appeal. 27.2 In ordinary course, the High Court in such jurisdiction does not interfere with finding of fact, however, if it does find any compelling reason to do so as regard in law, it can do but only after perusing the records of the Trial Court, on analysis of which the conclusion arrived at by such a Court is sought to be upturned. In other words, when overturning findings of fact, the Court will be required to call for the records of the Trial Court or if placed on record, peruse the same and only then question the veracity of the conclusions drawn by the Court below. Substantial Question No. 1: Whether a simple suit for injunction is maintainable or a suit for declaration of title is required to be filed by the appellants when there is a boundary dispute? 15. As seen from the pleadings of the parties, the appellants - plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction showing the schedule of property as Ac.1-00 guntas of land in Survey No. 225 in Sailampoor shivar of Suleman Nagar Village of Kotagir Mandal, Nizamabad District with boundaries as follows: East: Land of Hyder Sab. West: Land of Seetharamaswamy. North: Road. South: Land of Seetharamaswamy. Though the plaintiffs 1 and 2 purchased an extent of Ac.00-20 guntas each in Survey No. 225, both of them had shown common boundaries for Ac.1-00 gunta of land without showing them separately. Ex.A1, the sale deed of plaintiff No. 1 would show the boundaries of his property of Ac.00-20 guntas as: East: Land of Hyder Sab. West: Land of Abdul Kareem (plaintiff No. 2) South: Land of Seetharamaswamy. North: Dambar Road. Ex.A4, the sale deed of plaintiff No. 2 would disclose the boundaries of his land as follows: East: Land of Shaik Mohammed (plaintiff No. 1) West: Land of Seetharamaswamy. South: Land of Seetharamaswamy. North: Dambar Road. 16. The defendants in their written statement contended that the uncle of defendant No. 1 was the owner of Ac.1-10 guntas of land in Survey No. 224 of Suleman Nagar, Kotagir Mandal, he purchased the same under registered sale deed document No. 5801 of 1971 dated 24.07.1971 with the following boundaries: East: Passage for Om Khandsari Sugar Mill. West: Open site of Hind Khandsari Mill. North: Boundary of PWD Road leading to Kotagir. South: Om Khandsari Mill. They contended that the plaintiffs were showing the property of their uncle in Survey No. 224 as that of their property in Survey No. 225 and that they were claiming the same property. 17. When the plaintiffs filed the simple suit for bare injunction, it is for them to prove their possession over the suit schedule property within the boundaries as shown by them. 17. When the plaintiffs filed the simple suit for bare injunction, it is for them to prove their possession over the suit schedule property within the boundaries as shown by them. The plaintiffs filed the sale deeds, pattedar pass books and pahanies of the years 1999-2000 and 2005-2006 for Survey No. 225. They stated in their plaint that the land was kept fallow without any cultivation. As such, the pahanies would not be of much use, as the pahanies would disclose as to who was cultivating the land. The sale deeds and pattedar pass books would only prove their title. 18. On the petition filed by the defendants for localization of the suit schedule property, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as PW.4. He stated that with the help of Mandal Surveyor, Village Administrative Officer (for short "VAO") and in the presence of both the parties and their counsel, he proceeded to the suit schedule property on 29.06.2003. The Survey Nos. 224 and 225 were demarcated by the Mandal Surveyor by fixing the boundaries. The Mandal Surveyor prepared sketch, conducted panchanama and gave the report. The report of the Mandal Surveyor was marked as Ex.C5. The panchanama conducted by the Mandal Surveyor was marked as Ex.C6. The Tonch Map of Survey Nos. 224 and 225 was marked as Ex.C7. 19. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the defendants, the Advocate Commissioner admitted that as per Ex.C7, the road leading to Kotagir goes through Survey Nos. 223 and 224. The northern side boundary of Survey No. 225 was shown as Kotagir Road. The suit schedule land was shown in red color in Ex.C7. It did not completely touch the road leading to Kotagir and it touched only at one point. He further stated that in between the land in Survey No. 225 and the road leading to Kotagir, there was the land pertaining to Survey No. 224 but there was no mention about the extents of the land in Survey No. 225 and Survey No. 224 in Ex.C7. 20. The trial court on considering the said evidence of PW.4, observed that the boundaries given by the plaintiffs were not tallying with the boundaries given by the Advocate Commissioner. No sketch / plan were affixed to the sale deeds filed by the plaintiffs marked under Exs.A1 and A4. 20. The trial court on considering the said evidence of PW.4, observed that the boundaries given by the plaintiffs were not tallying with the boundaries given by the Advocate Commissioner. No sketch / plan were affixed to the sale deeds filed by the plaintiffs marked under Exs.A1 and A4. The boundaries prevail over the survey numbers and the extents mentioned when it comes to the identity of the land and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit lands, as the suit schedule boundaries shown by the plaintiffs were incorrect. 21. The trial court further observed that the Mandal Surveyor had specifically shown the land comprised in Survey No. 225 of the plaintiffs in red color in the sketch Ex.C7 prepared by him, which was not close or abutted to Kotagir Road, but on the other hand land in Survey No. 224 was abutting to the Kotagir Road as the boundaries shown by the defendants was in triangular shape. In view of the said glaring misrepresentation of the boundaries of the suit land, the trial court was of opinion that the plaintiffs had shown the boundaries of the suit land of Survey No. 224 and filed documents Exs.A1 to A9 in respect of the suit land. 22. The First Appellate Court also observed that there was a boundary dispute between both the parties. The contention of the defendants was that the plaintiffs wrongly shown the boundaries by showing the part of defendants' land and got registered malafidely. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not approach the Court with clean hands. The counsel for the defendants also vehemently argued that it was a settled principle of law that the boundaries prevail over survey numbers. He also argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit schedule property was in existence within the boundaries mentioned in the suit. The report filed by the Advocate Commissioner was supporting the version of the defendants. The Advocate Commissioner who was appointed on request of defendants in I.A. No.302 of 2003 to demarcate the land in Survey Nos. 224 and 225 and filed his report. He was examined as PW.4. PW.4 stated that as per the warrant, he visited the suit schedule property along with parties and their respective counsel, Mandal Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer of Sailampoor Shivar. 224 and 225 and filed his report. He was examined as PW.4. PW.4 stated that as per the warrant, he visited the suit schedule property along with parties and their respective counsel, Mandal Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer of Sailampoor Shivar. On 29.06.2003, the Mandal Surveyor demarcated the suit land and boundaries were fixed. He prepared a rough sketch and conducted panchanama. 23. It was brought to light in the cross-examination of PW.4 by the counsel for the defendants that as per Ex.C7, the road leading to Kotagir would go through Survey Nos. 223 and 224. The boundaries of the suit lands were mentioned in the warrant in Ex.C2. In Ex.C2 warrant, towards northern side, the boundary was shown as Kotagir Road. He was further cross-examined about the road touching the suit schedule property. But the Advocate Commissioner deposed that in between the land in Survey No. 225 and the road leading to Kotagir, there was the land pertaining to Survey No. 224. The suit schedule land did not completely touch the road leading to Kotagir. But, it touched it at only one point. But nothing was elicited that Advocate Commissioner wrongly executed the warrant without following the procedure. Ex.C1 was a crucial document, which was not disputed by either side because no one filed any objection to the Commissioner's report as per record. The said report would make it clear that the Mandal Surveyor surveyed the two survey numbers 224 and 225 and fixed the boundaries. Ex.C5 was the survey report. It would refer that after proceeding, he demarcated Survey No. 225 with that of village map and village pahani. According to him, the demarcation would reveal that the possession and cultivation of land under Shaik Mohammed and Abdul Kareem would come under Survey No. 225. After demarcation, he conducted spot panchanama with the help of Village Administrative Officer in the presence of the Commissioner and fixed the boundaries as: North: Survey No. 224. South: Land of Seetharamaswamy. East: VB of Ranampally Shivar and Hyder Sab West: Land of Seetharamaswamy. 24. The panchanama under Ex.C6 would make it clear. The tonch map Ex.C7 also would support the said fact. The schedule of property mentioned was different towards northern side boundary. The documents filed by the plaintiffs would show that in the northern side, there was a road. East: VB of Ranampally Shivar and Hyder Sab West: Land of Seetharamaswamy. 24. The panchanama under Ex.C6 would make it clear. The tonch map Ex.C7 also would support the said fact. The schedule of property mentioned was different towards northern side boundary. The documents filed by the plaintiffs would show that in the northern side, there was a road. According to physical verification by the Advocate Commissioner, the northern boundary was shown as Survey No. 224. The tonch map wherein the suit schedule property was shown in red color would disclose that some part of Survey No. 224 was located as northern boundary of Survey No. 225. Thereafter the PWD road would lead towards Survey No. 224. Hence, it is clear that the plaintiffs had wrongly shown the northern boundary. 25. Thus, both the courts below had appreciated the evidence on record and the Commissioner's report and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had shown the incorrect boundaries and the boundaries as shown by the plaintiffs and the boundaries as noted by the Mandal Surveyor were not tallying with each other and as such came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to be granted injunction to the suit schedule property within the boundaries shown by them. When there was a boundary dispute and the defendants had challenged the boundaries given by the plaintiffs as incorrect in their written statement, the plaintiffs ought to have amended the suit for declaration of title. 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others (cited supra) while appreciating the principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction would lie and when it was necessary to file a suit for declaration and / or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, held that: "13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction." 27. Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction." 27. As the written statement filed by the defendants poses a challenge to the plaintiffs' title raising a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs within the boundaries shown by them, an action for declaration is the remedy to remove the cloud on the title to the property. As such, a simple suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. 28. Accordingly, the substantial question No. 1 is answered accordingly. Substantial question No. 2: Whether there is any perversity in the judgments of the courts below in appreciating the evidence or framing the points for consideration or answering any issues? 29. The First Appellate Court had framed the point for consideration as "Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower court in O.S. No.14 of 2003, dated 25.04.2007?", without framing any other points. 30. The Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in Ch.Rukma Reddy and Others v. K.Dharma Reddy and Others (cited supra), held that: "6. It should not be forgotten that framing of a point in an appeal is an obligation imposed under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC. It was held by several Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that failure to frame points by an Appellate Court may prove to be fatal for the outcome of the appeal. A semblance of exemption from such requirement was given only in such cases where the Appellate Court undertakes discussion touching on each and every aspect of the matter though, points are not framed. Therefore, if it is evident that the Appellate Court had discussed the matter extensively with reference to each and every aspect of the matter, non-framing of point cannot be said to be fatal." 31. Thus, an exemption was given stating that failure to frame a point by the Appellate Court would not be fatal, if it discusses the points with reference to each and every aspect of the matter. In the present case also, the First Appellate Court discussed the matter extensively as extracted above on the above aspects. Thus, the failure to frame the points for consideration specifically is not fatal. 32. In the present case also, the First Appellate Court discussed the matter extensively as extracted above on the above aspects. Thus, the failure to frame the points for consideration specifically is not fatal. 32. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the issue with regard to the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule property was not discussed by the first Appellate Court, which was fatal to the case, when the suit was filed for permanent injunction. 33. Though the aspect of the possession at the relevant point of time is material to be decided in a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiffs were claiming that the suit schedule property was a fallow land and that no crops were cultivated. As such, the pahanies would be of no use. The plaintiffs were trying to prove their possession basing upon their title and pattedar pass books. As observed by the courts below, no sketch / plan was annexed to the registered sale deeds marked under Exs.A1 and A4. The Advocate Commissioner's report would show that the boundaries shown by the plaintiffs were incorrect towards the northern side. PW.1 also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not get the land measured at the time of purchase. As such, this Court does not find any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence or documents by the courts below and in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not entitled for injunction within the boundaries as shown by them. 34. Accordingly, the substantial question No. 2 is answered holding that there is no perversity in the judgments of the courts below in appreciating the evidence or framing the points for consideration or answering any issues. 35. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgments of the courts below. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal, if any shall stand closed.