In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff must prove possession to be entitled to relief.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.389 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam, who lost the first appeal in A.S.No.21 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Gopichettipalayam has filed the above second appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

.3. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

.The first defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 are the children of the first defendant; the plaintiff has another brother by name Kodiyan and three other brothers died after their marriage; the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiffs mother and in a family arrangement, the same was allotted to the plaintiff in 1970; the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property for the past 34 years by paying kist. The defendants are not willing to abide by the family arrangement. They are only entitled for 1/6th share in the suit property, but, the defendants are trying to encroach into the entire property. Hence the suit.

.4. The suit was contested by the defendants inter alia contending as follows:

.The suit property has not been properly described in the plaint schedule; Survey No.5/1B measuring to an extent of 1.61 hectares belongs to the first defendant; the first defendants wife name is Karuppayee and the name of the plaintiffs mother is also Karuppayee and taking advantage of the similarity in the name, the plaintiff is making a false claim towards the suit property; the family arrangement pleaded by the plaintiff is not true; in 1970 the plaintiff was only 16 years old and there was no family arrangement as pleaded by the plaintiff; the claim of the plaintiff that she was in possession of the suit property for 34 years is false; the alleged trespass by the defendant is false; the plaintiff is not in possession of the entire suit property whereas the first defendant is in possession of the same; the first defendant has been issued with Patta No.424 and the first defendant is paying the kist; there is no cause of action for the suit and on the above said pleadings, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

.5. After framing appropriate issues, the suit was taken up for trial and during trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and one Adaikan was examined as P.W.2, but, as he did not subject himself for cross-examination, his evidence has not been taken into consideration and on the side of the plaintiff, Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked. On the side of the defendants, first defendant has been examined as D.W.1 and one Kuppusamy has been examined as D.W.2 and Exhibits B1 to B.4 have been marked. The Trial Court on a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed an appeal in A.S.No.21 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam. The lower Appellate Court also on an independent consideration of the evidence on record and the reasoning of the trial court agreed with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that, the appellant is before this Court in the above second appeal.

6. Heard Mr. M.S. Velusamy, learned counsel for the appellant.

7. In the memorandum of second appeal the following questions of law have been framed as substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the Courts below are right in considering the Exhibits A1 to A11 in a perspective manner?

2. Whether the Courts below are right in saying that Ex.A.3 is not relating to the suit property?

3. Whether the reason for rejecting the Ex.A.3 by the Courts below are correct in law?

4. Whether the Courts below is correct in rejecting the Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11, which proved the absolute possession and enjoyment of the appellant?

5. Whether the non-mentioning of the