Question of title can be gone into in such cases.

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction O.S. No. 402 of 1972, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee. The first-defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff is the first-respondent. The second-defendant died pending the suit and the third-defendant, who is the second-respondent herein was added as the legal representative. The relationship amongst the parties runs as follows: The second-defendant was the father. One krishnammal was his second wife. The plaintiff, the first-defendant and the third-defendant through his first wife. The suit-property was a joint acquisition by the second-defendant and Krishnammal. The pleas of the defendants that the acquisition in the name of Krishnammal, was only benami for the second-defendant has been rejected by the two Courts below, as having no substance. On 15.9.1971, as per Ex.A.2, there was a Will by the second-defendant and Krishnammal, as per the terms of which the suit-property should go to the plaintiff for her life and thereafter to here grand-children. Krishnammal died on 5.11.1971. On 17.3.1972, as per Ex.B.6, the second-defendant revoked Ex.A.2. On the same date, he executed a fresh Will as per Ex.B.7, under the terms of which the first-defendant was given the suit-property. The plaintiff wanted to maintain the possession of the suit-property, which was admittedly with her on the date of the suit, though the defendants would deny the right of the plaintiff to be in possession. The first defendant and the second-defendant raised contest mainly relying on the revocation deed Ex. B. 6 and the subsequent Will Ex. 8.7. The first Court discredited Ex.B.6. and B.7 and upheld the maintainability of the suit for permanent injunction. As a result of its findings, the first Court decreed the suit, as prayed for. The first-defendant appealed in A.S. No. 14 of 1980, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvellore. The lower Appellate Court upheld the maintainability of the suit. While doing so, it took note of the subsequent event, namely the death of the second defendant pending the suit. The lower Appellate Court found Ex.B.7 as not true, genuine and a valid document. Though in the earlier passage of its judgment, the lower Appellate Court opined that a joint Will is revocable at any time either of the testators during their joint life or after the death of one of them, by the survivor, yet ultimately it held that such revocation by the second-defendant was not permissible by executing Ex.B.6 and B.7. Rejecting Ex.B.7, the lower Appellate Court countenanced the right of the plaintiff under Ex.A.2. In this view, it dismissed the appeal of the first-defendant, confirming the judgment and decree of the first Court. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court.

2. At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court mooted out the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

1. Whether the question of title can be said to be alien to the suit for bare injunction based on possession? and

2. Whether the Courts below have properly appreciated and applied the principles governing revocation of a Will to the facts of the present case?

3. On the first substantial question of law, possession having been found with the plaintiff, she could certainly maintain that possession, provided she makes out a right to it. It is true that as per the terms of Ex.A.2, the plaintiff could get at the suit property only after the life time of the second defendant. Rightly the lower Appellate Court took note of the subsequent event, namely, the demise of the second-defendant and held that the suit could be maintained by the plaintiff to protect her possession. To have her possession protected, the plaintiff has to demonstrate that her possession could not be unlawful. Hence, for the purpose of finding out whether the plaintiff has got right to lawful possession, so as to ma