This second appeal is focussed by the original plaintiff animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 17.04.2007 passed in A.S.No.653 of 2005 by the l Fast Track Court No.II – Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned XII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in O.S.No.3125 of 2003. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. The merits relating to the factual matrix would lie within a narrow campus, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following relief:

- To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant and her men, agents, servants or any other persons from encroaching or trespassing into the suit property or in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of scheduled property till the disposal of this suit.

(extracted as such)

(b) The written statement was filed resisting the suit.

(c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the relevant issues.

(d) The plaintiff-Thangappan examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the side of the defendant, one Mr.S.Marudamuthu was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.

(e) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit as against which appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

3. Challenging and impugning the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, this

Second Appeal has been filed on various grounds inter alia to the effect that the Courts below gave an erroneous finding as though the western side owner of the plaintiff's property encroached an extent of 10 feet and as such the suit was a misconceived one, even though absolutely there is no iota or shred, shard or miniscule extent of evidence to justify and fortify such finding by both the Courts below.

4. The following substantial questions of law are found suggested in the grounds of appeal:

"(1) Whether the courts below have properly considered the material evidence in the case while dismissing the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff?

(2) Whether the courts below have properly applied the law relating to grant of permanent injunction under the Specific Relief Act 1963 when the plaintiff's title to the suit property measuring 26'X62' is admitted and not disputed by the defendant?

(3) Whether the courts below have properly followed the settled principle of law that possession follows title?

(extracted as such)

5. My learned Predecessor framed the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the Courts below are right in holding that a suit for bare injunction without seeking the relief of declaration is not maintainable is correct in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Ramji Rai v. Jagadish Mallah, reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 900? (extracted as such)

6. Heard both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(a) Absolutely there is no title dispute involved in this case. The plaintiff would claim title over plot No.21, whereas the defendant would claim title over plot No.22 and plot No.21A. Both are situated to the east of the plaintiff's property. In such a case, the plaintiff was not duty bound to pray for the relief of declaration of title, but both the Courts below fell into error in holding that the suit was bad for want of prayer for declaration of title.

(b) Both the Courts without any evidence, merely based on the ipse dixit of the defendant that the western side owner of the plaintiff's property encroached into the plaintiff's property to an extent of 10 feet East to West, simply gave the finding in support of the defendant warranting interference in the Second Appeal.

(c) The learned counsel also inviting the attention of this Court to the Miscellaneous Pe