JUDGMENT : 1. The learned Counsel for the appellant in RSA Nos.1489/2011 and 351/2012 and the 1 st respondent in RSA No.1098/2011 reported that he relinquished vakalath for his parties. Accordingly, as per Order dated 16.01.2025 the Registry was directed to issue notice to the appellant in RSA Nos.1489/2011 and 351/2012 and the 1 st respondent in RSA No.1098/2011 by speed post. Notice to the said party is returned with the endorsement unclaimed. It is seen that in RSA No.351/2012 balance court fee is also not paid. Accordingly, R.S.A.No.1489/2011 and RSA No.351/2012 are liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. RSA No.1489/2011, 351/2012 and RSA No.1098/2011 arise from two suits- OS No. 341/1998 and 554/2002 which are disposed by the Trial Court by a common judgment along with counter claim in O.S No.341/1998. As per the common judgment of the Trial Court, the suits were dismissed and the counterclaim raised by the 1 st defendant was allowed. The plaintiff in the suit filed appeals before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgments and decrees in both the suits and in the counterclaim. The First Appellate Court dismissed the challenge against the judgments and decrees in the suit but allowed the appeal with respect to the challenge against the judgment and decree in the counterclaim, setting aside the judgment and decree in the counterclaim in O.S No.341/1998. RSA No.1098/2011 is filed by the 1 st defendant challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree in the counterclaim. 3. O.S No.341/1998 was filed by the plaintiff therein, one Joy, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to 11 acres in R.Sy.No.189/1 of Manissery Village in Ottappalam Taluk. O.S No.554/2002 is filed by the very same Joy for damages on the allegation that the defendants cut and removed trees from the very same plaint schedule property. In the counterclaim in O.S.No.341/1998, the 1 st defendant, Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad, claimed a permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the very same plaint schedule property. Since RSA No. 1489/2011 and 351/2012 at the instance of the plaintiff are liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution, the question to be considered is with regard to the counter claim in OS No.341/1998. 4. RSA No.1381/2011 is filed by the 1 st defendant in O.S. No.341/1998 Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad against one Sukumaran Nair as the sole defendant. Since RSA No. 1489/2011 and 351/2012 at the instance of the plaintiff are liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution, the question to be considered is with regard to the counter claim in OS No.341/1998. 4. RSA No.1381/2011 is filed by the 1 st defendant in O.S. No.341/1998 Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad against one Sukumaran Nair as the sole defendant. It arises from O.S.No. 326/2006 filed by him for permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property therein having an extent of 2 Acres in R.Sy No.189/1 of Manissery Village in Ottappalam Taluk. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. RSA No.1381/2011 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in the suit which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The question in RSA No.1381/2011 is whether the appellant is entitled to get a permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property having an extent of 2 Acres mentioned therein. 5. In sum and substance, the question to be considered in the surviving appeals RSA Nos.1098/2011 and 1381/2011 is whether Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad is entitled to get permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the plaint schedule properties in each case namely 11 acres and 2 acres both situated in R.Sy No.189/1. 6. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant in RSA No.1098/2011 and 1381/2011, Sri. P. Jayaram. There is no appearance for the respondents. 7. The parties are referred as per their names for better understanding. 8. Admittedly the plaint schedule properties in both the cases originally belonged to one Ravi Namboodiripad of Varikassery Mana. Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad is the Son of the brother of Ravi Namboodiripad. Ravi Namboodiripad died in the year 1980 without having any wife and children. Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad claimed the plaint schedule property alleging that Ravi Namboodiripad had executed a Will in favour of him. But no such Will was produced before the Court. Sankaranarayana Namboodiripad has another claim that he is one of the legal heirs of Ravi Namboodiripad and, thus, the co-owner of the plaint schedule properties. According to Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad, Joy and Sukumaran Nair is not having any right over the plaint schedule property, and hence, they are liable to be injuncted from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties. 9. Joy claimed the right to 11 acres. Sukumaran Nair claimed right over 2 acres. According to Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad, Joy and Sukumaran Nair is not having any right over the plaint schedule property, and hence, they are liable to be injuncted from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties. 9. Joy claimed the right to 11 acres. Sukumaran Nair claimed right over 2 acres. Both of them claimed that one Raman Kutty Tharakan executed a Verumpattam Cheet in favour of Ravi Namboodiripad of Varikkasery Mana dt 03.03.1961 with respect to 14 acres of land. Joy claimed that as per Document No.1885/1998 of SRO Ottappalam, Raman Kutty Tharakan transferred 12 acres out of the 14 acres to him. Joy sold 1 acre to one Ammukutty as per Document No.1886/1998, and thus, he is entitled to the remaining 11 acres, which is included in O.S. No.341/1998 as the plaint schedule property. Sukumaran Nair claimed 2 acres of land as per Document No.1884/1998 executed by Raman Kutty Tharakan, and hence the said property was included in the plaint schedule property in O.S No.326/2006 filed by Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad against Sukumaran Nair. 10. In all the cases, the Court found that Raman Kutty Tharakan did not derive any property of Varikkasery Mana, and hence, the claim of Joy for injunction and damages was declined. If Ramankutty Tharakan had not obtained any right over the plaint schedule properties, Joy and Sukumaran Nair could not claim any right over the plaint schedule properties. They cannot trespass into the plaint schedule property. But that would not enable the plaintiff to claim permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property unless the title and possession of Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad over the plaint schedule properties are proved. The Trial Court granted a permanent prohibitory injunction in favor of Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad with respect to 11 Acres claimed by Joy, which was reversed by the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court non suited Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad with respect to the 2 Acres claimed by Sukumaran Nair. 11. Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad had raised two claims over the plaint schedule properties. One is that Ravi Namboodiripad executed a Will in his favour with respect to the plaint schedule properties. But no such Will was produced and proved before the Court. Then, he claimed that he was one of the legal heirs of Ravi Namboodiripad. 11. Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad had raised two claims over the plaint schedule properties. One is that Ravi Namboodiripad executed a Will in his favour with respect to the plaint schedule properties. But no such Will was produced and proved before the Court. Then, he claimed that he was one of the legal heirs of Ravi Namboodiripad. This is also doubtful since in the judgment in OS No.326/2006 the Trial Court entered a finding that the father of Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad was not alive at the time of death of Ravi Namboodiripad. In such case, Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad, being the son of the pre- deceased brother of Ravi Namboodiripad, will not come either under Class I or Class II heirs of the Hindu Succession Act. 12. Of course, in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction the only question to be considered is the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties. But when Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad was examined before the Court, he admitted that he did not know the measurement and extent of the plaint schedule property, that there is no document to show that he is in possession of the plaint schedule property, and that there is no witness to prove his possession over the plaint schedule property. 13. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the principle, possession follows the title is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Counsel cited the decision of this Court in Remanan v. Chithran [2022(6) KLT 1181] in support of the said legal proposition. There is nothing on record to prove the title of Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad. In both the cases, the Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad has paid court fee only under S.25(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. No court fee is paid under S. 27(a). Hence, Sankara Narayanan Namboodiripad can win his cases only if he proves the possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit. 14. Hence, there is nothing wrong in dismissing the claim for permanent prohibitory injunction by Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad in both cases. As far as RSA No.1098/2011, the First Appellate Court rightly found that Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad is not entitled to get permanent prohibitory injunction. As far as RSA No.1381/2011, the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, rightly found that Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad is not entitled to get a permanent prohibitory injunction. As far as RSA No.1098/2011, the First Appellate Court rightly found that Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad is not entitled to get permanent prohibitory injunction. As far as RSA No.1381/2011, the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, rightly found that Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad is not entitled to get a permanent prohibitory injunction. The substantial questions of law formulated in the Appeal Memorandum do not arise for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, RSA No.1098/2011 and 1381/2011 are liable to be dismissed. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, RSA No.1489/2011 and 351/2012 are dismissed for non-prosecution and RSA Nos.1098/2011 and 1381/2011 are dismissed on merits, without costs.