The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of settled possession in granting injunction and protecting the possession of the defendant to the limited extent that he should not be dispossessed otherwise than in accordance with law.

1. This Second appeal is focussed by the original plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2006 passed in A.S.No.144 of 2005 by the Sub Judge, Ranipet, reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif of Sholinghur in O.S.No.104 of 2003. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. Compendiously and concisely, avoiding discussive dilation and detailing of facts, the germane narration would run thus:

(a) The plaintiff who happened to be the appellant herein, filed the suit seeking bare injunction as against the defendant so as to protect the former's possession.

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

(c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues.

(d) During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 and A10 were marked. The defendant-Ethirajulu examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2-Subramani and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.

(e) Ultimately the trial Court granted injunction, as against which appeal was filed. Whereupon, the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the original suit.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the plaintiff filed this Second Appeal on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Is the learned Subordinate Judge right in reversing the decree for injunction especially when the plaintiff proved his possession over the suit property?

2. Is the learned Sub Judge right in holding that plaintiff is not entitled to decree as the defendant has title, especially when the defendant has not produced any parent title document to prove the title of the vendor?

3. When it is settled in law that even a trespasser can be evicted only by due process of law, still is the learned Subordinate Judge right in dismissing the suit after finding possession with the plaintiff?

4. Is the learned Subordinate Judge who is the final court of fact right in not discussing

the evidence, especially of the plaintiff while reversing the finding of the trial Court?" (extracted as such)

4. My learned Predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Is the learned Sub Judge right in holding that plaintiff is not entitled to decree as the defendant has title, especially when the defendant has not produced any parent title document to prove the title of the vendor?

2. When it is settled in law that even a trespasser can be evicted only by due process of law, still is the learned Subordinate Judge right in dismissing the suit after finding possession with the plaintiff?

3. Is the learned Subordinate Judge who is the final court of fact right in not discussing the evidence, especially of the plaintiff while reversing the finding of the trial Court?" (extracted as such)

5. Heard both sides.

6. The warp and woof of the arguments as put forth on the side of the plaintiff would run thus:

(a) The trial Court gave a reasoned finding to the effect that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as on the date of the filing of the suit and even though he could not prove his title satisfactorily, still his possession should be protected and accordingly granted injunction.

(b) Whereas, the appellate Court based on the wrong proposition of law that as against a true owner no injunction could be granted, reversed the discernible judgment of the trial Court warranting interference in the Second Appeal.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would pray for setting aside the judgment of the first appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the trial Court.

7. In a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the plaintiff, the learned counsel for the defendant would advance his arguments, the nitty-gritty of them would run thus:

(a) As against a true owner no injunction cou