ORDER : RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J. This Review Petition has been filed to Review the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2018 made in SA.No.1003 of 2014 on the file of the this Court. 2. The defeated Defendants are the Review Petitioners. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the trial Court as Plaintiff and Defendants. 3. The present review petition arises out of the judgment and decree made in SA.No.1003 of 2014 on the file of the this Court, whereby my brother Justice had reversed the Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2014 made in A.S.No.38 of 2013 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Thirupattur. 4. The short facts that are necessary for leading to filing of this Review Petition are as under: 4(a). The Suit in O.S.No.83 of 2007 was filed before the learned Principal District Munsif, Thirupattur, for bare injunction by one Rohilant Ebens, the plaintiff herein. The present review petitioners are arrayed as Defendants in the said Suit. From the trial court records, I find that originally there was an IA.No.240 of 2007, wherein the Respondent/Plaintiff had sought for an interim injunction, pending Suit. 4(b). By order dated 21.08.2007, the learned District Munsif, Thirupattur, based upon the document filed by the Plaintiff has come to a conclusion that the Plaintiff is not in possession, on the date of filing of the Suit and accordingly, dismissed IA.No.240 of 2007. 4(c). Aggrieved against the order dated 21.08.2007, in IA.No.240 of 2007, the Plaintiff filed CMA.No.17 of 2007 before the Sub Judge, Thirupattur and the same was dismissed on 19.01.2009 by concurrenting with the finding of the learned District Munsif that the Plaintiff is not in possession on the date of the Plaint, more so, even from 2007 onwards. 4(d). Aggrieved against the said order, it appears that the Plaintiff has come to this Court by way of Civil Revision Petition in CRP(PD)No.2931 of 2009, and the same was dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of Suit as expeditiously as possible. 4(e). The Respondent/Plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S.No.83 of 2007 for permanent injunction and the review petitioners/Defendants have filed written statement, disputing the title and possession of the Plaintiff. The written statement has been filed, wherein this Court finds that plea of adverse of possession has also been taken. They also raised other pleas in the written statement. 4(e). The Respondent/Plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S.No.83 of 2007 for permanent injunction and the review petitioners/Defendants have filed written statement, disputing the title and possession of the Plaintiff. The written statement has been filed, wherein this Court finds that plea of adverse of possession has also been taken. They also raised other pleas in the written statement. 4(f). It is a specific case of the Defendants in their pleadings and in the written statement that the Suit property is under their absolute possession and enjoyment of the Defendants and the plaintiff also aware of their long and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property, from the time of their forefathers. Thereafter, by partition it was allotted to Defendants 1 to 4 and till date, they are in possession uninterruptedly and they also disputed the alleged power of attorney from persons from Chennai and Kolkatta. 4(g). According to the Defendants the plaintiff has not derived any title and even the vendors of the Plaintiff were not in possession of the property and the sale deed in favour of the vendors of the plaintiff by the Father of the Defendants are only sham and nominal. Despite the sale, which is sham and nominal, they are in possession of the property and Plaintiff is running a school, adjacent to the very same area, who had purchased the land for the school only from them and fully aware that the Defendants 1 to 7 are in possession of the property for more than forty two years. 4(h). As stated supra, after disposal of the CRP(PD).No.2931 of 2009 on 30.09.2009 the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.599 of 2010 to amend the Plaint and by order dated 07.07.2010, I.A.No.599 of 2010 was allowed and the Defendants 5 to 8 were added as parties and the Suit prayer was amended from bare injunction into declaration of title and injunction. 4(i). 4(h). As stated supra, after disposal of the CRP(PD).No.2931 of 2009 on 30.09.2009 the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.599 of 2010 to amend the Plaint and by order dated 07.07.2010, I.A.No.599 of 2010 was allowed and the Defendants 5 to 8 were added as parties and the Suit prayer was amended from bare injunction into declaration of title and injunction. 4(i). It appears that after amendment of plaint, additional written statement dated 23.07.2010 have been filed by the Defendants 1 to 4, wherein it is specifically stated that prayer for declaration of title is not maintainable, since the Defendants 1 to 7 have perfected the title by adverse possession and the 8 th Defendant is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and since the plaintiff is not in possession and the prayer for amendment was made only in respect of permanent injunction to declaration of title and not for recovery of possession, which is discussed infra. 5. During the trial, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW3 were examined/ PW1 is the Plaintiff; PW2 is the person who has attested the sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff and on court summon Tahsildar was examined as PW3. The third Defendant was examined as DW1; Chairman of the Panchayat union of the locality was examined as DW2; Assistant from the Sub Registrar's office was examined as DW3; DW4 & DW5 are the neighbouring persons, who deposed regarding possession of the Defendants; DW6 is the purchaser pendente lite, who had filed separate written statement alleging that he is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. Ex.A1 to Ex.A33 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff; Ex.B1 to Ex.B.13 were marked on behalf of the Defendants. The revenue documents were marked as Ex.X1 & Ex.X2. Ex.B2 is the 61 Kist receipts standing in the name of Murugan, Govindhan and Elavi Gounder viz., father and forefather of the defendants. 6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidences, learned Principal District Munsif at Thirupattur by judgment dated 18.09.2013 decreed the suit and granted the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. 7. Aggrieved against the said order, the defeated Defendants filed A.S.No.38 of 2013 and after hearing both the parties, the learned Sub Judge, Thirupattur, Vellore District, has allowed the Appeal Suit on 25.04.2014 and set aside the order passed in O.S.No.83 of 2007 dated 18.09.2013. 8. 7. Aggrieved against the said order, the defeated Defendants filed A.S.No.38 of 2013 and after hearing both the parties, the learned Sub Judge, Thirupattur, Vellore District, has allowed the Appeal Suit on 25.04.2014 and set aside the order passed in O.S.No.83 of 2007 dated 18.09.2013. 8. Aggrieved against the same, the Plaintiff has filed S.A.No.1003 of 2014 and by judgment dated 02.11.2018, my brother Justice has allowed the Second Appeal and decreed the Suit. 9. Now the defeated Defendants have filed this Review Petition. In the judgment made in S.A.No.1003 of 2014 dated 02.11.2018, following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court: “(1) Taking note of the principles the "Justice, Equity and Good Conscience", defendants 1 to 7, having admitted the sale transaction effected by their ancestors in favour of the plaintiff's predecessors in title in respect of suit properties under Exs.A6 to Ex. A9 and Ex. A33, in the eye of law, whether can they justify in setting up their alleged title adverse to the interest of genuine lawful purchasers and as such the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Judge in entertaining such a vexatious claim of alleged adverse, possession is not perverse? (2) Having regard to the fact that the plaintiff is a true owner of the suit properties, in any event, whether the learned first appellate Judge has not erred in not presuming the plaintiff's possession by applying the principle of "possession follows title”, more particularly when the Suit properties are landed and cultivable properties?” And answered both the substantial questions of law in affirmative and accordingly decreed the Suit. 10. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner relied upon the following judgments: 1. (1994) 1 SCC 1 ( S.P.Chengalvaraya Naida Vs. Jaganath ) 2. 2024 SCC Online SC 969 ( Lehna Singh Vs. Gurnam Singh ) 3. (2005) 4 SCC 741 ( BCCI Vs. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner relied upon the following judgments: 1. (1994) 1 SCC 1 ( S.P.Chengalvaraya Naida Vs. Jaganath ) 2. 2024 SCC Online SC 969 ( Lehna Singh Vs. Gurnam Singh ) 3. (2005) 4 SCC 741 ( BCCI Vs. Netaji Cricket Club ) With regard to the meaning of the word 'sufficient reason' in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, after perusing the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2024) 7 Supreme court Cases 315 ( Government of NCT of Delhi and another vs. K.Rathi Steels Limited and others ), I find that Netaji Cricket Club and Jagmohan Singh's case relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners/Defendants stands diluted by the subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi and another vs. K.Rathi Steels Limited and others reported in (2024) 7 Supreme court Cases 315. 12(a). This Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, in the nature of Review. The learned senior counsel for the Respondent relied upon the following judgments: 1. AIR 1954 SC 526 ( M.M.B.Chatholicos Vs. M.P.Athanasius ) 2. 1997 (8) SCC 715 ( Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others ) 3. 2000 (4) CTC 425 (Mani Janagarajan Vs. Kammavar Sangam through its Secretary R.Krishnasamy) 4. AIR 2024 SC 3738 ( S.Tirupathi Rao Vs. M.Lingamaiah and others ) By relying upon the above said decisions, Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent would state that a review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and the Court has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. It is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A Review Petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 12(b). It is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A Review Petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 12(b). In this connection, in (2024) 7 Supreme court Cases 315 ( Government of NCT of Delhi and another vs. K.Rathi Steels Limited and others ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarised the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and explanation thereto and held that review power distinguished from inherent power to recall the order in exceptional circumstances and also apprised that on the meaning “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC has to be read in conjunction clauses (a) & (b) and for construing the limitation any other sufficient reasons appealing in Rule 1. 12(c).With regard to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 r/w.Section 114 of CPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Tirupathi Rao's case held as follows: “8. The present lis confronts us primarily with two inter-related legal issues. The first one requires us to examine whether the parameters set out in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC for exercising the power of review, as interpreted by this Court Court in its numerous judgments, were at all satisfied for the High Court to embark on an exercise of review. The second issue requiring our consideration is the terminus a quo for commencement of the point of limitation in matters of contempt, in the light of provisions of Section 20 of the Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution and Rule 21 of the Writ Rules.” 13. The ratio laid down in the above said decisions on the scope of the review as contemplated under Order 47 Rules 1 of CPC are kept in mind. 14. This Court is not sitting over the judgement passed my brother Justice in S.A.No.1003 of 2014 and it is only with regard to the limited scope as defined under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC r/w. Section 114 of CPC. 15(a). On the factual matrix, initially the Suit was filed for bare injunction, as per the trial Court records, the Suit was filed on 26.03.2007 and subsequently, as stated supra, Injunction Application in I.A.No.240 of 2007 was dismissed on 21.08.2007 by the learned District Munsif, Thirupattur. CMA.No.17 of 2007 before the Sub Judge, Thirupattur was dismissed on 19.01.2009. 15(a). On the factual matrix, initially the Suit was filed for bare injunction, as per the trial Court records, the Suit was filed on 26.03.2007 and subsequently, as stated supra, Injunction Application in I.A.No.240 of 2007 was dismissed on 21.08.2007 by the learned District Munsif, Thirupattur. CMA.No.17 of 2007 before the Sub Judge, Thirupattur was dismissed on 19.01.2009. CRP(PD).No.2931 of 2009 was disposed on 30.09.2009, by this Court. Thereafter, the Plaintiff appears to have been filed application to amend the prayer from bare injunction to declaration of title and for permanent injunction. 15(b). I have verified the trial Court records, there is no prayer with regard to recovery of possession. The finding rendered in the interim application cannot be a precedent, while finally dispose the Suit, after recording the oral and documentary evidence and after full-fledged trial. 16. Considering the various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred decisions and applying those decisions with the present factual matrix, the following points arise for consideration: 1. Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the records in the derivative title of the Plaintiff? 2. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the records with regard to the alleged possession of the Plaintiff on the date of the Plaint? 3. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the records with regard to the plea of adverse possession by the Defendants? 4. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the records on the plea of title of the Plaintiff? 5. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the records with regard to the plea of possession by the Plaintiff for the relief of possession? 6. Whether the judgment in S.A.No.1003 of 2014 suffers from error apparent on the face of the records for the absence of prayer of recovery of possession in a simple Suit for declaration of title? and in otherwise, whether the Suit is maintainable? 17. In view of the fact that, it is a review petition, this Court imposes self restriction upon itself and refrain from re-appreciating the evidence and the findings rendered in the above Second Appeal. 18. Within the limitation and the purview of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC r/w. Section 114 of CPC, whether the Plaintiff has proved the plea of his possession. 18. Within the limitation and the purview of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC r/w. Section 114 of CPC, whether the Plaintiff has proved the plea of his possession. Whether such a finding in the Second Appeal suffers from any error apparent on the face of the records and plea of possession of the Plaintiff suffers from an error apparent on the face of the records, Whether the plea of adverse possession projected by the Defendants has been considered or suffers from an error apparent on the face of the records as stated in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, within a limited scope, this Court proceeds to look at the pleadings, the evidences and the finding. 19. For the sake of clarity and at the risk of the repetition it is to be stated that initially the Respondent/Plaintiff filed the Suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Thirupattur, along with the Suit he has also filed I.A.No.240 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on 21.08.2007 by the learned District Munsif, Thirupattur, thereafter, CMA.No.17 of 2007 was filed by the Plaintiff before the Sub Judge, Thirupattur and the same was dismissed on 19.01.2009, so also, CRP(PD).No.2931 of 2009 was filed and the same was disposed on 30.09.2009. 20. At first, the suit was filed only against four persons, subsequently interim application has been filed by adding four more persons along with the 8 th defendant, who is the subsequent purchaser. 21. Another Interlocutory Application has been filed for amending the prayer from bare injunction to declaration of Plaintiff's title and for permanent injunction. As stated supra, the Defendants in their original written statement have specifically stated that the Plaintiff was never in possession of the property nor the records, besides they are in possession for more than 37 years and the alleged sale deed executed by the Defendants' father is sham and nominal and it is invented for the statistical purpose. Despite the sale, the fathers of the Defendants, were in possession of the property, thereafter, on the family partition, Ex.B7 property was allotted to the Defendants 1 to 7 and the Defendants are in possession, which is known to the Plaintiff. Despite the sale, the fathers of the Defendants, were in possession of the property, thereafter, on the family partition, Ex.B7 property was allotted to the Defendants 1 to 7 and the Defendants are in possession, which is known to the Plaintiff. Since he is running a school next to the suit property and in view of the open uninterrupted possession, the Defendants 1 to 7 have perfected the title by adverse possession. After impleadment, the 8 th defendant, subsequent purchaser filed written statement, disputing the title of the plaintiff and also the possession and further stated that he is the 'bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration'. 22. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that both in the written statement as well as in the additional written statement, the Defendants have raised the plea of adverse possession. 23. On perusal of the order passed in the above said Second Appeal, My brother Justice (now Retired Judge) has allowed the Second Appeal on the ground that title deeds are in favour of the Plaintiff and possession follows the title, however, I find that with regard to the finding of the plaintiff's possession, which is the crux of the matter, there is a glaring error apparent on the face of the records, falling within the first condition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 24(a). The Suit schedule indicates that the Suit relates to five pieces of Dry vacant land of a total extent of 7.86 acres in Yelagiri Hills, Thirupathur Taluk and District. The suit property was originally owned by one Rama Gounder. He died leaving his son Elavi Gounder and a Grandson Govindan, Son of Elavi Gounder. 24(b). The said Elavi Gounder and Govindan had sold the property on 30.06.1965 by dividing the property into 5 pieces to five different persons. It is the case of the defendants that the five purchasers, who are all hailing from different places such as Chennai, Bangalore and Calcutta had not taken possession of the property and have not enjoyed the property and have not paid the property tax to the said property till 2007 for almost 42 years. 24(c). On the other hand, it was the defendants, who have been in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying the property tax to the property in their own name for the said period of 42 years. 24(c). On the other hand, it was the defendants, who have been in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying the property tax to the property in their own name for the said period of 42 years. In proof of the same, the defendants have produced the property tax payment receipts in the suit as defendant's documents. The Plaintiff claimed to have purchased one portion of the property from Nithyanandam, who is said to be the original buyer on 19.02.2007 vide (Ex.A1). The other four portions of the property were purchased from the alleged legal heirs on 19.02.2007 and 20.04.2007 under Ex.A2 to Ex.A5. 25. The plaintiff claims title through the sale deed obtained by him in the year 2007, which is immediately before filing of the Suit. According to the Plaintiff the genealogy and family tree are as under: 26(a). The parent document for both sides are marked as Ex.B1 dated 08.11.1940, the property was auctioned by Government for the recovery of arrears of land revenue and it was purchased by Raman Gounder, who had two sons viz., Elavi Gounder, Krishnan. The said Krishnan had one son viz., Govindan. After the death of Raman Gounder, his son Elavi and Govindan become the legal heirs. Before Govindan got married, Elavi sold his property to five persons on 30.06.1965 by way of sale deeds Ex.A6, Ex.A7, Ex.A8, Ex.A9 and Ex.A33. 26(b). According to the Plaintiff he had purchased from the purchaser in the year 2007, few months before filing of the Suit under Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A3, Ex.A4 & Ex.A5. 26(c). According to the Plaint, some of the purchasers and vendors died and hence, based upon the general power of attorney (Ex.A10 and Ex.A11) said to have been given by the legal heirs, the sale was effected and in two cases, the original purchaser died, who had said to have executed a Will and based upon the Will he purchased the property from the legatee under the Will as per probate order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Madras . 27. As to the scope of review, this Court bears in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi and others Vs. 27. As to the scope of review, this Court bears in mind the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 , wherein it was held as follows: “Under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power to review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. In the case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others reported in (2023) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Civ) 686, wherein it was held as follows: 35. The principles which can be culled out from the abovenoted judgments are: (i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise. (iii) The expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. (iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f). (v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. (iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f). (v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review. (vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court. (vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.” In Civil Appeal Nos.1167 to 1170 of 2023 dated 24.02.2023, in the case of S.Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors., wherein it was held as follows: After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, this Court had summed upon as under: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” (emphasis supplied) 28. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” (emphasis supplied) 28. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued 12 contentions, out of which, 6 contentions “do not fall” under the category of “error apparent” on the face of the records and hence, the same are not considered herein. 29. So also, 3 contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are to the point that the order under review is an erroneous order and needs correction. However, in view of the decision cited supra, in Parsian Devi's case, the same is for an appeal and cannot be raised in the review. With regard to these points raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, though this Court finds that there is a mistake in the order under review, however, for the same, it has to be “deducted by the process of reasoning”, which was held to be not an error apparent on the face of the records, justifying this Court to exercise its power in review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC r/w. 114 of CPC, as held in the above cited S.Murali Sundaram's case and thus, within the limited scope following 3 points contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner only, arises for consideration in this review application before this Court, which is discussed infra. 30. Perused the Plaint, the Suit was initially filed on 26.03.2007 for injunction. Interim order of injunction was rejected, Appeal was rejected, Revision was also rejected by the High Court, amendment effected, parties were impleaded, additional defendants were impleaded, additional written statement was filed. Suit prayer was amended and extended from injunction into declaration of title and injunction. 31. The sum and substance of the written statement for the limited purpose of review is plea of adverse possession, perfection of title by adverse possession and sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff is doubtful and fabricated and is a land grabber. The documents filed in the IA and in the Suit by the Plaintiff are one and the same. 32. The rudimentary principles of law in the above said facts are as under: 1. The documents filed in the IA and in the Suit by the Plaintiff are one and the same. 32. The rudimentary principles of law in the above said facts are as under: 1. The plaintiff has to plead and prove his title. 2. The plaintiff cannot get a decree of declaration of title on the defect of the defendants. 3. For the relief of injunction, the plaintiff has to plead and prove that he is in possession of the suit property on the date of the filing of the suit. 4. For the relief of title by adverse possession, as by the defendants necessary conditions has to be complied with. 5. The doctrine of, possession follows the title can be applied, if and only if title is proved and not otherwise. 6. Whether there is error apparent on the face of the records as to the pleadings and proof of title of the plaintiff, possession of the plaintiff and adverse possession, if any by the defendants is to be considered in this review application. 33. Except Ex.A6, remaining documents Ex.A7, Ex.A8, Ex.A9 & Ex.A33 are all only certified copies. The defendants specifically disputed the tile of the plaintiff, specifically disputed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the sale deeds covered under Ex.A6, Ex.A7, Ex.A8, Ex.A9 & Ex.A33, are sham and nominal. Non production of the very important document viz., the original sale deed, ex facie glaring on the face of the records. The plaintiff has to plead and prove his title and possession. 34. On the plea of title to the property that is specifically disputed by the Defendants my brother Justice has relied upon certified copies of the documents. The Defendants both in the pleadings as well as in the evidence has stated that these sale deeds are not obtained from the real and registered person and the power of attorney deed Ex.A10 & Ex.A11 are of the year 1994, while the sale deeds Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, are thirteen years after the said power of attorney. 35(a). Perused the records of the trial Court. On bare perusal on the naked eye of Ex.A10, Ex.A11 and Ex.A6, whether on the date of the execution of sale deed viz., 2007, the registered owner is alive or not, remains mystery. 35(a). Perused the records of the trial Court. On bare perusal on the naked eye of Ex.A10, Ex.A11 and Ex.A6, whether on the date of the execution of sale deed viz., 2007, the registered owner is alive or not, remains mystery. The plaintiff relied upon the sale deed of the year 2007, filed suit on the very same year, the sale deed was obtained through power agent. 35(b). On a causal perusal of Ex.A10 & Ex.A11 reveals that there is no schedule of the property. After thirteen years of power deeds, the present sale deed came into existence. Whether the principal is alive or dead, totally unknown. None who have said to have executed Ex.A7, not entered into the witness box. 35(c). In other words, everyone connected with the document whisked away from the witness box, except the present plaintiff and his Manager, none was appeared to have entered the witness box, as could be seen from the bare reading of the appendix to the trial Court judgment. 36. When the Plaintiff filed Suit on the strength of the previous sale deed and power of attorney, it is for him to prove the same, when a person, who is also claiming the title from the very same predecessor from the title is arrayed defendants. The crucial factor touching upon the derivative title of the plaintiff appears to be conspicuously absent and missing in the judgment under the review. 37. Based upon Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 sale deeds dated 19.02.2007 and Ex.A5, plaintiff claims title. The genuineness of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are specifically disputed both in pleadings and evidence as well. In respect of Ex.A3 sale deed, the property was originally purchased by George, he died on 29.12.1984 and his wife died subsequently. As per the Plaintiff's pleadings deceased George had executed a Will in favour of his wife and daughter, no Will or any attestor of the Will was marked or examined before the trial Court and copy of alleged probate order of Madras High Court was also not produced. 38(a). In respect of sale deed under Ex.A4, the plaintiff's pleadings are to the effect that Raman Menan purchased the property under Ex.A8 dated 30.06.1965. He died, his wife also died, there was a Will and there was an order of the High Court of Karnataka and thereafter, he has obtained power of attorney from the legatee of the Will. 38(a). In respect of sale deed under Ex.A4, the plaintiff's pleadings are to the effect that Raman Menan purchased the property under Ex.A8 dated 30.06.1965. He died, his wife also died, there was a Will and there was an order of the High Court of Karnataka and thereafter, he has obtained power of attorney from the legatee of the Will. Ex.A4 is projected to be in favour of the Plaintiff through the power agent under Ex.A10 & Ex.A11 by the legatee under the Will. 38(b). The death certificate of Raman Menan or his wife are not filed and marked, alleged probate proceedings before the High Court Karnataka also not placed before the trial Court. Whether the person who executed Ex.A10 & Ex.A11 are the legatees of the said Raman Menon remains mystery. No relevant document has been filed, no oral evidence has been let in, neither the alleged principal under deed of power of attorney viz., legatee under the Will or the legal representative of deceased Raman Menon have entered into the witness box. As per witness list, all are whisked away from the witness box. 39(a). Curiously on a casual glance of the general power of attorney (Ex.A10 ad Ex.A11) there is no schedule viz., no description of property in the said power deed. No revenue records were produced. In other words, neither the original Will nor the attestor of the Will nor the probate proceedings of the High Court of Karnataka are produced. Whether the legatee alone have executed Ex.A10 & Ex.A11, whether Ex.A10 and Ex.A11 is in connection with the suit property are all under cloud. 39(b). Since no document was filed and no one in connection with thereto examined before the trial Court, as it is glaring from the appendix to the judgment, which only shows the present plaintiff and Manager as PW1 and PW2. The material witnesses as indicated above are conspicuously missing. Since it is a review, this Court is not substituting its view, however, could state that there is absolutely no oral or documentary evidences, in connection with Ex.A4, the parent document and alleged derived document Ex.A8 and hence, coming into the existence of Ex.A8 is under cloud. The rudimentary principles have been thrown into air and a castle has been constructed in the air and hence it is an error surface on the face of the records. 40. The rudimentary principles have been thrown into air and a castle has been constructed in the air and hence it is an error surface on the face of the records. 40. Non examination of any person connected with Ex.A4, Ex.A10, Ex.A11 and Ex.A8 is apparent from the appendix annexed to the trial Court, judgment under review. No revenue records has been produced in connection with Ex.A4 or Ex.A8. Hence, I find that with regard to plaintiff's title under Ex.A4, ex facie there is patent error. 41(a). The vendor of Ex.A1 has not entered into the witness box to prove his identity and genuineness of the sale deed, so also the vendor of Ex.A2, followed by Ex.A6 in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2's original parent sale deed was not marked before the trial Court and the vendor whisked away from the witness box. No oral or any documentary evidence, much less original parent document for Ex.A2 were marked. Same is the position in respect of Ex.A3. 41(b). As per pleadings the plaintiff's claim under Ex.A9 (parent document not filed) with regard to property under Ex.A3, as per pleadings, Raman Menon from Calcutta died on 21.07.1988, he left a Will dated 15.03.1980 and widow & two sons viz., legal heirs of the Raman Menon and they obtained orders from the High Court of Karnataka. The widow of Raman Menon viz., Rukkumani alleged to have been died on 23.01.1990. 41(c). On perusal of the list of documents filed before the trial Court on the side of the plaintiff, I find that, neither the original nor copy of the alleged Will was marked, no legalheirs certificate was marked, alleged probate order from the High Court of Madras also not marked, death certificate of Rukumani was not marked and none of the alleged legatee under the Will were examined, in support of Ex.A3 for claiming plaintiff's title, all is not well with Ex.A3, patently. 41(d). This Court cannot shut its eyes, when the error appears on the face of record, on mere casual glance of the list found in the judgment of the trial Court with regard to title under Ex.P.9. 42(a). The plaintiff is bound to prove his title and alleged possession. 41(d). This Court cannot shut its eyes, when the error appears on the face of record, on mere casual glance of the list found in the judgment of the trial Court with regard to title under Ex.P.9. 42(a). The plaintiff is bound to prove his title and alleged possession. In the absence of any oral evidence from the vendor or his legal heirs or the attestor of the Will, the Will said to have been executed by the vendor or the copy of the probate order of the High Court of Madras none being marked. However, in the order under review it was held that since document is a registered document, Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, that is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff's are proved the case. 42(b). There is a glaring error on the face of the record, warranting interference, as the same falls within the parameter of Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC. 42(c). As found in clause (ii) of para 5.1 of the above extracted judgment in S.Murali Sundaram's case, without discussing into the long drawn process of reasoning, on bare perusal of the list of oral evidence and list of documentary evidence, appeared in the trial Court judgment, the above factual position, ex facie appears on surface. 43(a). Yet another point that was noticed by this Court on ex facie reading of the documents is that misconception of fact with misconception of law, as stated in clause (iv) of para 5.1 of the S.Murali Sundaram's case. 43(b). Plaintiff's sought for relief of injunction, interim injunction petition was dismissed. Appeal and revisions were also dismissed. Documents filed in IA in the Suit and the Suit are one and the same. 43(c). For the prayer of injunction, the crucial date for determination is, presentation of the plaint. On the date of the plaint, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that he is in possession of the property. PW1 is the Plaintiff and PW2 is the Manager, the admission in cross examination that they are seeking delivery of possession from the Defendants for more than 1.5 years. This vital part of the cross examination was screened, decree appears to have been granted based upon the chief examination, answer elicited in the cross examination appears to have been screened. Screening of admission by PW1, the defendants' possession on the date of plaint, is ex facie glaring on the face of the records. This vital part of the cross examination was screened, decree appears to have been granted based upon the chief examination, answer elicited in the cross examination appears to have been screened. Screening of admission by PW1, the defendants' possession on the date of plaint, is ex facie glaring on the face of the records. 44(a). This court is conscious of the fact that this Court is not sitting on an appeal over the judgment under review. However, to make the point that in the cross examination, PW1 has categorically admitted that the case of the Defendants as to his possession for more than forty two years, besides patta, chitta, adangal viz., revenue records are in the name of the defendants, none in the name of the plaintiff. This admission of PW1 in the cross examination was screened (with due respect, the word is used). 44(b). PW1 in the cross examination dated 21.09.2010 has categorically admitted as follows: The above admission of PW1 is reproduced, not for, re-appreciating the evidence, but to the factum of screening, such admission in the order under review. 45. This vital part of admission of PW1/plaintiff as to the title and possession is conspicuously screened and absent in the order under review, while the chief examination of PW1 alone was taken to grant a decree, de hors the admission of PW1 in the cross examination. Eschewing plaintiff's admission, in the cross examination of the defendants and granting decree based upon PW1's chief examination alone, de hors, the admission of PW1 of defendants case, is error apparent on the face of the Court. Thus, eschewing the PW1 admission, is glaring on the face of the records, without any investigation of reasoning, much less, long drawn process of reasoning, on a bare perusal of admission of PW1 in the witness box, the plaintiff's case has to be thrown out of the Court at the threshold. 46. De hors, non filing of any document of the predecessor in title, original documents in favour of his vendor, absence of any documentary evidence as to the possession, on the date of plaint. The error is so apparent. 47. The revenue witnesses PW3 and DW5 supported the case of the defendants. The oral evidence of PW3 and DW5 appears to have been conspicuously absent in the order under the review is also glaring on the face of the record. The error is so apparent. 47. The revenue witnesses PW3 and DW5 supported the case of the defendants. The oral evidence of PW3 and DW5 appears to have been conspicuously absent in the order under the review is also glaring on the face of the record. The non filing of any revenue documents as to the possession and the revenue witnesses PW3 and DW5 did not support the case of the plaintiff. This version of revenue witness available on record appears to have been screened. Hence, I find that there is misconception of fact and misconception of law in the order under review, which is squarely falls under clause iv of para 5.1 of the Murali Sundaram's case. 48. Another misconception of law on the fact, is to the effect that non seeking the prayer for recovery of possession. 48(a). After the dismissal of interim application for injunction as confirmed by this Court in CRP, the plaintiff has sought for amendment of prayer for declaration of title, however, not sought for the recovery of possession. In the absence of any prayer for recovery of possession, the suit itself is not maintainable, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Trust & others Vs. Chandran & others, reported in CDJ 2017 SC 135 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court by relying upon Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act held that the Plaintiff having been found not to be in possession and having only sought for declaration relief, the suit is clearly not maintainable. Thus, suit itself is not maintainable in law and hence, decreeing the Suit is apparent error. 49. So also in the case of Vasantha (dead) Vs. Rajalakshmi @ Rajam , reported in 2024 (5) SCC 282 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable, when the plaintiff is not in possession. 50. With regard to the plea of adverse possession by the defendants, Ex.B2(s) is self explanatory. This clearly prove that the defendants/review petitioner and their pre-decessors were in open, continuous possession asserting their possession by having patta in their name and by paying kist for the lands. Needless to state, no one will pay kist for lands in which they do not have interest or belonging to another. This clearly prove that the defendants/review petitioner and their pre-decessors were in open, continuous possession asserting their possession by having patta in their name and by paying kist for the lands. Needless to state, no one will pay kist for lands in which they do not have interest or belonging to another. Hence, the Defendants have proved title by adverse possession - in any event in possession on the date of suit and before. On the contrary, the Plaintiff/ Respondents has not produced receipt in the name of his 5 vendors from 1964 to 2007- thereby plaintiff had not proved his possession - to seek only prohibitory injunction. The Defendants have proved possession through documentary evidence on the date of the suit and long before. Non-consideration of material evidence viz., revenue documents filed by the defendants is a glaring error with regard to defendants case, which falls under clause ii of para 5.1 of the above extracted judgment in S.Murali Sundaram's case. 51. Thus on the above three points viz., (a) plea of plaintiff on title on his alleged possession on the date of the plaint, no document has been produced as could be seen from the list appendix in the trial Court, (b) the plea of adverse possession by the defendants having been admitted by PW1 in the cross examination and non-consideration of the admission of the defendants case by the plaintiff in the cross examination is error apparent on the face of the records. 52. Ex.B2(s) goes to show that from the 1965 to 2006 for forty one years, the defendants are in possession of the property. It is a matter of record as available as evidence in this case. The vendors of the plaintiff has lost the title and the Defendants in the suit has perfected the title by adverse possession and the 8 th Defendant is the bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. 53. From the records, ex-facie, this Court finds, following Misconception of fact and Misconception Law, as stated in Clause (iv) and patent error on face of record, as stated in Clause (ii) of judgment cited supra. 53. From the records, ex-facie, this Court finds, following Misconception of fact and Misconception Law, as stated in Clause (iv) and patent error on face of record, as stated in Clause (ii) of judgment cited supra. (A) Misconception of fact: On bare view of documents marked before the trial Court, this Court finds that: (i) No revenue records, either in favour of plaintiff or plaintiff's vendor is filed and nor marked; (ii) Both revenue witness P.W.3 and D.W.5, oral evidence simpliciter, that no revenue records are available as to plaintiff possession or that of their vendors. Thus, on bare perusal of naked eye, from list of oral witness and documentary evidence list appended to trial Court Judgement, ex facie points out that no evidence is available on record as to alleged plaintiff possession or his vendor possession, on the date of plaint. (B) Misconception of Law: (1) Grant of decree solely based on chief examination plaintiff. (2) Eschewing the admission in the cross examination of P.W.1, as to the defendants case possession on the date of plaint. (3) Grant of decree for title and possession for plaintiff, de hors, admission of defendants case of adverse possession for 42 years, by P.W.1 cross, is patent error. (4) Registration of sale deeds, implies validity of the title without any documents whatsoever. 54. The following patent error is apparent: (1) Decreeing the suit, which is not maintainable in law. (2) Decreeing the suit for injunction, when plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property on the date of plaint. (3) Decreeing the suit for title, while none of vendors document in original are marked and none of vendors were examined. None of legal heirs of vendors were examined none of legatte under the alleged Will of alleged owner were examined nor will copy original or xerox, were marked, none of alleged probate order of High Court, as pleaded, were marked. None of the alleged power-agent of the sale deed were examined, when deed of power attorney is without schedule or description of property. 55. I find that the above factual matrix as appears on the surface of the record that are marked before the trial Court satisfies the clause (ii) of para 5.1 of the above extracted judgment in S.Murali Sundaram's case. Hence, such a situation warrants interference of this Court. 56. 55. I find that the above factual matrix as appears on the surface of the record that are marked before the trial Court satisfies the clause (ii) of para 5.1 of the above extracted judgment in S.Murali Sundaram's case. Hence, such a situation warrants interference of this Court. 56. This Court has self imposed restrictions on itself, in view of the scope of the review application, except to travel on the above point that appeared on the surface of the records. Though other evidence available on record, but that are not fall within the scope of the review, the same was not discussed. 57. In fine, this Review Petition is allowed. Judgment and Decree dated 02.11.2018 made in SA.No.1003 of 2014 on the file of this Court is hereby recalled & set aside and Judgment and Decree dated 25.04.2014 made in A.S.No.38 of 2013 by the learned Sub Judge, Thirupattur is hereby confirmed. Consequently, Suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff in O.S.No.83 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Thirupattur stands dismissed both on maintainability and lack of evidence. No costs.