Unless there is a substantial question of law involved, no second appeal would lie.

This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 18. 2008 passed in A.S.No.3 of 2007 by the Sub Court, Chengalpet, confirming the judgement and decree dated 26. 2006 passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistate, Thirukalukundram, in O.S.No.2 of 2001, which was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal, would run thus:

The plaintiff/second appellant herein filed the suit seeking the following relief:

"to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property."

As against which, the defendants entered appearance and filed the written statement.

3. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with one Nataraj as P.W.2 and Rajagopal as P.W.3 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. The second defendant examined himself as D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on the defendants side.

4. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit. As against which, the first appeal A.S.No.3 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgement and decree of the trial Court. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgements and decrees of both the Courts below, the plaintiff filed this second appeal on various grounds, including the following proposed substantial questions of law:

"1) Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit without considering the evidence of D.W.1 who has categorically admitted that both the appellant and the defendant are in possession and enjoyment of their respective portions purchased by them and more particularly when Ex.B2, Sale Deed reflects the suit property as the boundary on the Eastern side?

2) Whether the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit when Ex.B2-Sale Deed has come into existence after the passing of the Final Decree in O.S.No.26 of 89 wherein the recitals and the boundaries of the schedule themselves show that the Eastern portion has been purchased by the defendants and when particularly the defendants have not proved that the lie of the lands are North-South?

3) When the courts below have got the power to modify the relief whether they are correct and just in not doing so?

4) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the relief of permanent injunction without seeking a prayer for declaration for dismissing the suit is not against the judgement reported in AIR 2007 SC 900?"

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. A bare poring over and perusal of the typed set of papers, including the judgements of both the Courts below and also the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant would display and demonstrate, evince and expatiate that the plaintiff purchased the suit property-vide Sale Deeds-Ex.A1-dated 5. 1991, 1. 1992, 5. 1992 and 22. 1992, from one of the co-sharers of a larger extent of property, of which the suit property formed the Western portion, and he started enjoying the same exclusively. However, the defendants purchased from one other co-sharer Vide sale Deed-Ex.B2-dated, 110. 1992, the remaining Eastern portion of the undivided property. While so, between those respective vendors, viz., brother and sister, a partition suit emerged and in that suit, ultimately the Northern portion was allotted to the share of the vendor of the plaintiff and the Southern portion was allotted to the share of the defendants vendor. The fact also remains that the plaintiff happens to be