Possession alone is material in a suit for injunction.

1. Defendants in O.S. No.327 of 1994 on the file of District Munsif Court, Nannilam are the appellants.

2. Suit filed by plaintiff was one for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering with his possession. It is the case of plaintiff that the property belongs to Chokkapuram Mutt and it was in the possession of one Chellapillai. As per Ex.A3, he sold the property to one Arumuga Mudaliar and Meenakshisundaram Mudaliar. Both of them executed another sale deed on 12. 1953 as per Ex.A2 to one Govindaraja Pillai, who in turn sold the property to plaintiff under Ex.A1 dated 22. 1960. Eversince that date, plaintiff is in possession of the property.

3. Eversince the date of purchase, plaintiff us paying dues to Chokkapura Adhinam. Eventhough he has sold 25 cents to in Shanbagavalli, entire property is included in the schedule. Reason for filing the suit was that defendants are attempting to interfere with his possession.

4. In the written statement filed by defendants, they contended that they were nowhere concerned with the suit property and they have been unneccessarily impleaded. Thereafter it is said that the property belongs to second defendant Arulmigu Acham Theertha Vinayagar Temple. There are nine tenants for the temple who are doing services. So long as they do services, they are not liable to be evicted. It is said that the property was in the possession of one Kandasamy alias Alagiru as tenant. He alienanted the superstructure to one Kadirveldoss, who in turn sold the property to one Ramalingam and he continued in possession of suit property, wherein he is running a Homeopathy Clinic. Ramalingam was mentally ill and his younger brother Kaliaperumal took up family management and he put up a tailoring shop in the property. Kaliaperumal and Paneerselvam are enjoying the superstructure. The superstructure became very weak and Kaliaperumal made arrangements to remove the thatched portion and to put up roof. At that time, plaintiff came to the scene and prevented him from putting up superstructure Chokkapuram Adhinam is neither owner of the property nor in possession of the property. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Originally there was only one defendant. Subsequently, by virtue of amendment, two other defendants were impleaded.

6. Trial Court after taking evidence held that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his possession and it dismissed the suit.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment, plaintiff preferred appeal in A.S. No.20 of 1999 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Nagapattinam. Lower appellate court reconsidered the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that plaintiff is in possession of the property and the suit was decreed as prayed for.

8. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is assailed in this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

.(1) Whether in a suit for bare injunction the court can go into the question of title and give a decree for injunction without the plaintiff proving possession on the date of suit?

.(2) whether the plaintiff having come to court with then case that the suit property is a vacant land, which was proved false by the Advocate Commissioners report is entitled to any equity?

.(3) Whether the court can ignore the admission of the plaintiff that patta is in the name of the temple which supports the case of the defendants who are Kasavy tenants of the temple in possession of the suit property?

9. Ongoing by the pleadings and evidence, I do not find that there is any merit in the second appeal.

10. The suit is only for injunction, and hence possession alone is material. To prove possession, plaintiff has produced documentary evidence to show that himself and his predecessors were dealing with the property. Ex.A3 is the document of the year 1948 and purchased under Ex.A3, sold the property to the purchaser under Ex.A2, who in turn, sold the property to plaintiff under Ex.A1. Kist is also being p