1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant, inveighing the judgement and decree dated 16.3.2006 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, in A.S.No.22 of 2003, confirming the judgement and decree dated 16.12.2002 passed by the District Munsif, Jayankondam, in O.S.No.53 of 2000, which was filed for permanent injunction.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A recapitulation and 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(i) The first respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit seeking permanent injunction.

(ii) The defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit.

(iii) Whereupon the trial Court framed the relevant issues. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2 to P.W.4 and and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. The first defendant examined herself as D.W.1 along with the second defendant as D.W.2, D.W.3 and D.W.4 and marked Exs.B1 to B3.

(iv) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed by

D1 for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgement and decree of the trial Court.

4. Challenging and impugning the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, this second appeal is focussed by D1 on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"a) Whether under the provisions of the Benami Prohibition Act it is open to the plaintiff to plead that Ex.B1 to B3 the sale Deeds in favour of the defendants were Benami Transactions and the defendants 1 and 2 were not the real owners.

b) Whether even if the suit properties belonged to the father-swaminatha Udayar the plaintiff, the son cannot get a decree for injunction against his sister and mother defendants 1 and 2 who are co-owners along with him.

c) Whether a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable when the exclusive title of the plaintiff is in question.

d) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge has erred in placing the burden of proof on the defendants under Section 105 of the Evidence Act" (Extracted as such)

5. My learned predecessor adopted as such the above substantial questions of law.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The nitty-gritty and the gist and kernal of the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the appellant/D1 would run thus:

(i) The Courts below miserably failed to take into account the fact that indubitably and indisputably the property stands in the name of D1, as per Ex.B2-the Sale Deed dated 6.6.1955.

(ii) In the plaint itself it is found spelt out that the property stands only in the name of D1-the mother of the plaintiff and in such a case, without a prayer for declaration of title the suit framed was untenable, but the Courts below ignoring the settled proposition of law, simply granted injunction, which amounts to granting injunction as against the true owner.

(iii) The provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, also was not taken into account by the Courts below.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant would pray for setting aside the judgements and decrees of the Courts below and for dismissing the original suit filed by the plaintiff.

8. Per contra, in a bid to take the edge off and torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the appellant, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would advance his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(i) D1 already sold, her alleged right over the suit property in favour of her daughter-D2, and D2 has not preferred any appeal or second appeal and in such a case, D1, who is having no ownership over the suit property, is having no right to file the second appeal and prosecute this matter.

(ii) The Courts below taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property that D1