JUDGMENT : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2014 passed in R.A.No.10/2012 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna, and the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed in O.S.No.38/2006 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant, and the respondent was the plaintiff. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for a permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. The same was purchased from its previous owner under a registered sale deed dated 02.01.1970, and thereafter, he came in possession, and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said property stands in the name of the plaintiff and he is paying kandayam to the said property. It is contended that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for permanent injunction. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. The defendant filed a written statement denying the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as claimed in the plaint, and also contended that the defendant is the owner and in possession of old Junjer No.132 and new No.56 of Mallinathapura village, which comes within the Hunasavadi Gramapanchayath. The suit schedule property comes within the property of the defendant, and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same, since from the time of his ancestors. The defendant constructed a tobacco barn in the suit schedule property and owns 2 tobacco barns measuring 16 x 16 feet in the suit schedule property. He obtained tobacco lincece in the name of his son M.D.Purushotham, bearing T.B.G.R.No.4/045/064. The plaintiff filed a suit by suppressing true facts and also by creating some documents. The defendant constructed a tobacco barn in the suit schedule property and owns 2 tobacco barns measuring 16 x 16 feet in the suit schedule property. He obtained tobacco lincece in the name of his son M.D.Purushotham, bearing T.B.G.R.No.4/045/064. The plaintiff filed a suit by suppressing true facts and also by creating some documents. It is also contended that the boundaries finished to the suit schedule are created and there is no such alleged schedule property in the suit schedule. In fact, the said boundaries refer to the property of the defendant, wherein the tobacco barns are situated well within the said boundaries. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff for mere permanent injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 3.2. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendant over the suit schedule property? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as sought for in the plaint? 4) What order or order? 3.3. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW.1, examined one witness as PW.2, and marked 3 documents as Exs.P1 to P3. In rebuttal, the defendant examined as DW.1, examined one witness as DW.2, and marked 9 documents as Exs.D1 to D9. 3.4. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties, hearing both sides, and after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, and issue No.4 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 17.12.2011, and the order of permanent injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants from interfering into his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 3.5. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.38/2006, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.10/2012 on the file of the Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna. 3.6. 3.5. The defendant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.38/2006, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.10/2012 on the file of the Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, sitting at Periyapatna. 3.6. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the plaintiff was successful in demonstrating before the Court that he was the absolute owner on the basis of sale deed dated 02.01.1970 and that he is in lawful possession of the same? 2) Whether the interference in the impugned judgment is called for? 3) What order? 3.7. The First Appellate Court, on hearing the parties and after re-appreciating the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative, and point No.3 as per the final order. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal vide judgement dated 04.03.2014, and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.38/2006. 3.8. The defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgments, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 4. This Court, on 10.03.2017, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: 1) Whether in a suit for bear injunction the Courts below are right in holding defendant, except producing Panchayath documents has not placed any such title documents nor produced any authenticated material to show his title and possession over the suit property? 2) Whether the courts below were justified in entertaining the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of bearing injunction and granting the said relief contrary to the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported in AIR 2008 (SC) 2033 ? 3) Whether courts below were right in not holding that the suit of the plaintiff involves dispute relating to the title and possession and identification of the suit property? 5. This Court issued a notice to the plaintiff. Despite the service of notice, the plaintiff remained unrepresented. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant. 7. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the description of the suit schedule property is the part and parcel of the defendant's property and the defendant has constructed tobacco barns in the suit schedule property. He submits that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 7. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the description of the suit schedule property is the part and parcel of the defendant's property and the defendant has constructed tobacco barns in the suit schedule property. He submits that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He submits that son of the defendant i.e., M.D.Purushotham is running a tobacco barn by obtaining a licence in the suit schedule property. He submits that there is a serious dispute regarding the existence of the suit schedule property. He also submits that the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. He submits that mere suit for bare injunction without seeking the relief of declaration of title is not maintainable. To buttress his arguments, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A NATHULA S UDHAKAR V S . P. B UCHI R EDDY ( DEAD ) B Y LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 . He submits that, both the Courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant. 9. Reg. Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 to 3 : Substantial question of law Nos.1 to 3 are interlinked with each other and hence, they are taken together for a common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 10. The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1. He has deposed that the plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property in 1970 under a registered sale deed and based on the registered sale deed, the name of the plaintiff appears in the revenue records, and he is paying kandayam of the suit schedule property. The defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and the defendant is trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, to prove that he is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property, produced documents, Ex.P1 is the original registered sale deed dated 02.01.1970, which discloses that the plaintiff had purchased the property under a registered sale deed, Ex.P2 is the demand register extract for 2005-06, and Ex.P3 is the tax paid receipt. The plaintiff, to prove that he is the owner and in possession of the suit schedule property, produced documents, Ex.P1 is the original registered sale deed dated 02.01.1970, which discloses that the plaintiff had purchased the property under a registered sale deed, Ex.P2 is the demand register extract for 2005-06, and Ex.P3 is the tax paid receipt. The plaintiff also examined one witness as PW.2, who has deposed that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property based on Ex.P1. During the cross-examination of PW.1, it was suggested that the boundaries shown in the plaint is incorrect, and it is part and parcel of the defendant's property. The said suggestions were denied by PW.1. During the course of cross-examination of PW.2, it was suggested that defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property. The said suggestion was denied by PW.2. 11. In rebuttal, the defendant examined himself as DW.1, and deposed that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendant after obtaining necessary license from the competent authority, constructed a tobacco barns and the son of the defendant is carrying on the business of tobacco in the suit schedule property, and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. To substantiate the defence of the defendant, the defendant has produced the documents. Ex.D1 is a certified copy of the assessment register extract, Ex.D2 is a certified copy of the demand register extract, Exs.D3 and D4 are the certified copies of the assessment register extract, Ex.D5 is the order passed by the Executive Officer on 23.06.2006, Ex.D6 is the resolution passed by the gram panchayath, Exs.D7 to D9 are the tax paid receipts. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to DW.1 that, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property based on Ex.P1 i.e., registered sale deed executed in 1970. The said suggestion written statement denied by DW.1. The defendant also examined one witness as DW.2. He has deposed in the same lines of DW.1. 12. From perusal of the entire evidence on record, the defendant has taken specific defence in the written statement at para No.5, which reads as follows: "All other averments which are not specifically traversed are hereby denied as false. Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the plaint. He has deposed in the same lines of DW.1. 12. From perusal of the entire evidence on record, the defendant has taken specific defence in the written statement at para No.5, which reads as follows: "All other averments which are not specifically traversed are hereby denied as false. Plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed in the plaint. In fact, plaintiff has no right whatsoever and never in possession of the schedule property at any point of time. The documents produced by the plaintiff are all created for the purpose of the above suit. Infact, the defendant is the owner and in possession of old Janger No.132 and New number 56 of Mallinathapura village which comes within the Hunasavadi Grama Panchayath. The schedule property comes within the property of the defendant and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since the time of his ancestors. The defendant has also constructed a Tobacco Barns in the schedule property and owns tow Tobacco Barns measuring 16' x 16' ft in the schedule property. He has also obtained Tobacco Licence in the name of his son M.D.Purushotham which bears the TBGR No.4/045/064. By suppressing the true facts and also by creating some documents in collusion with the Panchayath authorities, plaintiff has field the above suit in order to knock off the valuable property of defendant. The boundaries furnished to the suit schedule property by the plaintiff are created and there is no such alleged schedule property in the suit schedule. In fact the said boundary refer to the property of the defendant, wherein the Tobacco Barns are situated well within the said boundaries." 13. From the perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant he has specifically denied the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, and also description of the suit schedule property. The defendant has contended that the said property is part and parcel of the defendant's property. Then there is a serious dispute regarding the title, and also about the boundaries of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Mere suit for permanent injunction without seeking the relief of declaration of title is not maintainable. 14. In the case of A NATHULA S UDHAKAR V S . The plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Mere suit for permanent injunction without seeking the relief of declaration of title is not maintainable. 14. In the case of A NATHULA S UDHAKAR V S . P. B UCHI R EDDY ( DEAD ) B Y LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para No.11.1, 11.2 and 11.3, reads as follows: 11.1) Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner. 11.2) Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession. 11.3) 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. 15. Admittedly, in the present case, the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and the suit property The plaintiff has to establish that, as of the date of suit, he was in lawful possession of the suit property and the defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful possession. On the contrary, the defendant has contended that the defendant constructed two tobacco barns in the suit schedule property and his son is carrying on the business, after obtaining a licence from the concerned authorities on the suit schedule property. On the contrary, the defendant has contended that the defendant constructed two tobacco barns in the suit schedule property and his son is carrying on the business, after obtaining a licence from the concerned authorities on the suit schedule property. When the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. However, the plaintiff has filed a suit for bare perpetual injunction. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The judgment and decree passed by the courts below are contrary to the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A NATHULA S UDHAKAR (Supra). Hence, both the courts below have committed an error in passing the impugned judgments. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law Nos.1 to 3 in the negative. 16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned judgments passed by the courts below are hereby set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. iii. A liberty is reserved to the plaintiff to file a comprehensive suit, if so desired. iv. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of.