The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession follows title, and the scope of an injunction suit does not extend to resolving title disputes. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the need for a registered power deed for executing a registered sale deed and the burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove genealogy.

1. This Second Appeal is focused by the plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 211. 2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in A.S. No.172 of 2005 reversing the judgment and decree dated 06.02.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Namakkal in O.S. No.188 of 2002. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking in the party array before the Trial Court.

2. Avoiding discursive delineation and detailing of the facts in view of both the Courts below having set forth the cases of the respective parties at length, the summation and summarisation of relevant factual scenario, which is absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal could be portrayed thus:

The plaintiff/appellant filed the Suit O.S. No.188 of 2002 seeking permanent injunction as against the defendants. Whereas the defendants entered appearance and resisted the Suit as though the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit property.

3. The Trial Court framed the issues. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the defendants side DI examined himself as DWI along with D.Ws.2 to 6 and Exs.B1 to B13 were marked.

4. Ultimately the Trial Court decreed the Suit, as against which, the First Appeal A.S. No.172 of 2005 was filed by the defendants which reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal on various grounds by setting out a few substantial questions of law in the memorandum of Appeal.

5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on both the sides.

6. My learned predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

(a) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in going into the question of the validity of Exs.A1 and A2 in the absence of any plea of an issue regarding the same before the Trial Court?

(b) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in not following the well settled principle of law that possession follows title in respect of vacant land?

(c) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge was right in framing a point for determination which does not arise out of the pleadings of the parties before the Trial Court?

7. A deep analysis and poring over of the judgments of both the Courts below including the typed set of papers would demonstrate and display that the plaintiff filed the Suit O.S. No.188 of 2002 for bare injunction on the ground that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the strength of the sale deed Ex.A2 dated 17. 2001 got executed in his favour from the Power of Attorney of the alleged owners of the suit property.

8. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would advance his argument to the effect that the First Appellate Court ignored the supine admissions made by DW1 (D1) in support of the plaintiffs case; the defendants cannot pick holes in Ex.A1, the Power Deed executed by the owners of the Suit property in favour of their power agent; the defendants neither proved their title nor their possession over the Suit property and accordingly he prayed for allowing the Second Appeal.

9. Whereas the learned Counsel for the defendants would develop his argument to the effect that the plaintiffs very sale deed itself is a defective one as the real owners did not executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff; there is nothing to indicate that the executants of the power deed in favour of their alleged power agent are the legal heirs of their alleged propositus Thasi Naidu; the power deed itself is a dubious document as it does not contain the signatures of the executants on all pages; the stray sentence here and there in the deposition of DW1 cannot be capitalised by the plaintiff without positively adducing evidence in proving his case. Accordingly, he prayed for