JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. The defendants in a suit for injunction before the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi has come up in the present appeal aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.51/2003 of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi by the Additional District Court-III, Manjeri in AS No.80/2009. 2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit for injunction contending that the plaintiff is in possession of the property covered by the 3 rd schedule to document No.1342/1963. The 5 th schedule in the document is allotted to one Damodaran Nair. The plaintiff's mother Meenakshi Amma purchased 6 cents of property from one Chathangattu Kuruppath Velayudhan Nair and also obtained properties as per partition deed No.1342/1963. The properties mentioned in the name of Damodaran Nair is mistakenly written in the partition deed as 31 cents whereas the actual measurement is only 23 cents. The plaintiff's mother died intestate and that the plaintiff is the only one legal heir. The property obtained by plaintiff and her mother as per partition deed and the property obtained by plaintiff's mother as per document No.152/1967 is scheduled in the plaint. Thus the plaint schedule property has a total extent of 44 cents in re-survey No.11/2010. The 1 st defendant is not the wife of Damodaran Nair and the 2 nd defendant is not his daughter as he died a bachelor without issues. On 25.10.2002 the defendant cut down certain plantains and pappaya trees in the plaint schedule property which lead to the filing of the criminal complaint and later since the threat to trespass continued, the suit is instituted. The defendants entered appearance and contested the suit to contend that the plaintiff never obtained 44 cents of property. Damodaran Nair obtained 31 cents of property as per partition deed No.1342/1963 and out of 31 cents, 23 cents was sold to Narayanan Nair as per sale deed in the year 1971. The defendants have no knowledge regarding deed Nos.270/1974 and 2822/1991. Since there are no boundaries on all sides of the plaint schedule properties, the same were lying in common. In the basic tax register it is clear that the properties comprised in Re-survey No.11/10 is in the name of Damodaran Nair. 3. On behalf of plaintiff Exts. A1 to A3 series were produced and PWs 1 to 3 were examined. Since there are no boundaries on all sides of the plaint schedule properties, the same were lying in common. In the basic tax register it is clear that the properties comprised in Re-survey No.11/10 is in the name of Damodaran Nair. 3. On behalf of plaintiff Exts. A1 to A3 series were produced and PWs 1 to 3 were examined. On behalf of defendants Exts.B1 to B6 were produced and DWs 1 and 2 were examined. Exts.C1 and C2 are the reports of the Advocate Commissioner and Exts.C1(a) and C2(a) are the sketches prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. While PW3 was examined, a petition dated 01.08.2002 written by the 2 nd defendant was produced which was marked as Ext.X1 wherein it is alleged that the 2 nd defendant has admitted that the plaintiff is in the possession of the plaint scheduled property. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court framed the following issues. “1.Whether, the plaint schedule description is correct? 2. Whether the plaintiff has possession over plaint schedule properties? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? 4. What order as to costs?” 4. The trial court held that since the plaintiff could not prove the identity and possession of the property, she is not entitled for the injunction as prayed for. Aggrieved the plaintiff preferred AS No.80/2009. The first appellate court relying on the oral testimony of DW1 who admitted the handwriting of the 2 nd defendant in Ext.X1 document, held that the plaintiff has proved that she is in possession of the property. Further, the first appellate court by referring to item No.5 of Ext.A1 partition deed found that the property allotted to Damodaran Nair did not have an extent of 31 cents and therefore, upheld the contentions of the plaintiff and reversed the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the reversal of the judgment and decree, the defendants have come up in the present appeal raising the following substantial questions of law. “i) Is the lower Appellate Court justified in law in granting decree of injunction without going into the question of title when the defendant disputed the plaintiff's possession as well as title and also set up their independent title over the portion of the property.? “i) Is the lower Appellate Court justified in law in granting decree of injunction without going into the question of title when the defendant disputed the plaintiff's possession as well as title and also set up their independent title over the portion of the property.? ii) Is not the lower appellate court erred in granting a decree of injunction without proper identification of the property on the basis of plaintiff's title deed? iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the discretionary relief of injunction in a case she approached the court without clean hands and with a malicious intention to grab the property of the defendants? iv) Is not the courts below erred in not framing an issue on plaintiff's title over the property and adjudicate the same considering the pleadings and facts and circumstances of the case?” 5. Heard Sri.P.R.Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.M.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the first appellate court erred egregiously in reversing the finding of the trial court by relying on the evidence of DW1, the mother of the 2 nd appellant. Admittedly, Ext.X1 was not produced along with the plaint and was produced only through PW3. Unless and until the contends of Ext.X1 is put against the 2 nd defendant in cross examination, the contents of Ext.X1 could not have been used by the first appellate court to hold that the plaintiff has proved her possession over the plaint schedule property. Equally so, it is contended that the first appellate court could not have undertaken the exercise of ascertaining the true extent of the property merely by the description contained in item No.5 of Ext.A1. It is further submitted that the first appellate court failed to consider a crucial document that is the 3 rd commission report filed on 04.03.2009 and also the sketch produced along with the report which would clearly disprove the case of the plaintiff. 7. Per contra, Sri.M.Krishnakumar the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff has never recognised the appellants as the true legal heirs of deceased Damodaran Nair. According to the learned counsel, late Damodaran Nair was unmarried and therefore it is upto the appellants to establish their rightful claim over the plaint schedule property in a comprehensive suit for declaration and if necessary recovery of possession. According to the learned counsel, late Damodaran Nair was unmarried and therefore it is upto the appellants to establish their rightful claim over the plaint schedule property in a comprehensive suit for declaration and if necessary recovery of possession. Therefore, it is the specific case of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that based on the materials available as on date especially the report of the Advocate Commissioner which finds that plaintiff is in possession of 43.23 cents, the first appellate court has correctly decreed the suit. 8. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar and have perused the records in the case and the judgments rendered by the courts below. 9. In the nature of dispute raised by the parties, this Court is constrained to note that essentially the claim of the appellants is nothing but setting up a title over the balance extent of property held by late Damodaran Nair. It is indisputable that, late Damodaran Nair had sold certain extents of property to a 3 rd party. The plaintiff claims that Damodaran Nair had only 23 cents allotted under Ext.A1 deed whereas the defendants claim that going by the description of item No.5 to Ext.A1, and also the property sold to the 3 rd parties, balance extent of property is available over which the plaintiff cannot claim any right what so ever. Ideally, the trial court ought to have re- framed the issues and should have asked the plaintiff to establish her title over the plaint schedule property. But however, a perusal of the issues framed by the trial court initially would show that an issue regarding the plaintiff's title was also framed but, by order dated 13.07.2009, the issues were recast since the suit was for injunction simpliciter. 10. It is now settled law that in a suit for injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff is not required to prove the title. Admittedly, going by the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it is evident that the plaintiff is in possession of 43.23 cents. However, the trial court had declined the relief because the plaintiff could not establish the exact extent of property as claimed in the plaint. Admittedly, going by the report of the Advocate Commissioner, it is evident that the plaintiff is in possession of 43.23 cents. However, the trial court had declined the relief because the plaintiff could not establish the exact extent of property as claimed in the plaint. Be that as it may, a reading of the judgment of the first appellate court shows that the only ground on which the first appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court is on the admission of DW1 based on the document written by the 2 nd defendant (Ext.X1). This Court fails to comprehend as to how the evidence of DW1 would be put against the 2 nd defendant in the absence of any specific query raised to the 2 nd defendant as regards the contents of Ext.X1. Equally so, this Court cannot subscribe to the findings of the first appellate court as regards the exercise undertaken by the first appellate court to ascertain the measurement of the property based on the contents of Ext.A1. 11. Having said so, this Court must notice that the claim of the defendants/appellants is based on the title over the property. This Court finds considerable force in the submission of Sri. M.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that if the defendants had any case on title, ideally the same ought to have been raised in a counter claim along with a written statement. In the absence of any such claim, the question of title of the defendants cannot be gone into in a simple suit for injunction. If that be so, the findings of the first appellate court will have to be necessarily upheld for other reasons, especially since the Advocate Commissioner had found the plaintiff to be in possession of 43.23 cents. 12. But this Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that if the appellants have any rightful claim over the property, that cannot be defeated by the respondent/plaintiff solely based on the judgment and decree of the first appellate court in AS No.80/2009 by which the suit O.S.No.51/2003 is decreed. For that, the appellants will have to necessarily institute a comprehensive suit on title and if so advised seek recovery of possession. The question of title of the appellants cannot be gone into question in the present proceedings. 13. For that, the appellants will have to necessarily institute a comprehensive suit on title and if so advised seek recovery of possession. The question of title of the appellants cannot be gone into question in the present proceedings. 13. As an upshot of the above findings, this court has answered the substantial questions of law raised in the appeal as follows. 1)The first appellate court was justified in granting injunction without going into the question of title since the issues were recast by trial court and the question of title of the plaintiff was deleted. 2)In view of the findings of the Advocate Commissioner identifying the plaint schedule property to an extent of 43.23 cents and finding that the plaintiff to be in possession, the decree of the appellate court does not require interference. 3)Since the plaintiff’s claim for injunction is based on possession, it was upto the defendants to have sought appropriate relief through counter claim or institute a fresh suit on title. 4)In view of recast issues, the first appellate court was justified in granting the decree for injunction. 14. Having said so, for the reasons aforementioned, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the appellants to institute a comprehensive suit on title and possession and to seek appropriate relief for recovery of possession from the respondent or any persons claiming under her on establishing the identity and title over the balance if any left by late Damodaran Nair. Therefore, this Court while affirming the judgment and decree in AS No.80/2009 decreeing OS No.51/2003, dismisses this appeal by granting liberty to the appellants to the above extent. It is made clear that any observations made by the courts below in OS No.51/2003 as well as in AS No.80/2009 of the Additional District Court-III, Manjeri or by this Court in this appeal will not stand in the way of the appellants in asserting their independent right title and interest over the property left behind by late Damodaran Nair. It is also made clear that the period spent in these proceedings will not be counted for the purpose of computing limitation in filing the subsequent suit if the same is filed within three months from the date of receipt of this Judgment. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.