The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of necessary pleadings and appropriate issues regarding title in a suit for injunction, and the conditions under which title can be decided incidentally in such suits.

Challenge in this second appeal is to the Judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No.8 of 2008 by the Sub Court, Karur, wherein the Judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.640 of 2003 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur are set aside.

2. The respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.640 of 2003 on the file of the trial Court for the relief of perpetual injunction, wherein the present appellant has been shown as first defendant.

3. The nubble of the plaint is that the suit property is originally belonged to one R.Murugesan S/o. Rasappa Gounder. For the purpose of convenience, the plaintiff by utilizing his funds has purchased the suit property from the said Murugesan in the name of his son viz., the first defendant under the Registered sale deed dated 24.01.1994. After purchase, the plaintiff has put up a construction in the suit property by utilizing his funds. Ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property has been leased out to the defendants. Though the sale deed dated 24.01.1994 stands in the name of the first defendant, the first defendant has no manner of right, title and interest over the suit property. The first defendant has been under the care and custody of the plaintiff at the time of execution of sale deed dated 24.01.1994. The suit property has been purchased in benami in the name of the first defendant. A flimsy dispute has arisen betwixt the plaintiff and first defendant. Taking advantage of the dispute that exists between the plaintiff and first defendant, the first defendant has claimed a novel right over the suit property and he has also threatened to sell the suit property. The defendants are enjoying the suit property as tenants within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The relationship of landlord and tenant exists betwixt the plaintiff and defendants. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the relief of perpetual injunction.

4. It is averred in the written statement that it is false to contend that the suit property, for convenient sake has been purchased by utilizing the funds of the plaintiff in the name of the first defendant. It is also equally false to say that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and the same has been leased out to the defendants and the defendants are enjoying the same as tenants of the plaintiff. The first defendant has been running a finance company and he is a managing partner and out of his funds, he purchased the suit property from its original owner. It is false to contend that the suit property has been purchased in benami in the name of the first defendant. The defendants are not enjoying the suit property as tenants of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief sought for in the plaint and therefore, the present suit deserves dismissal.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings raised on either side, the trial Court has framed two issues and after evaluating both the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the suit. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No.8 of 2008 on the file of the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has allowed the appeal, whereby and whereunder set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the present second appeal has been filed at the instance of the first defendant as appellant.

6. On the side of the appellant/first defendant, the following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration:

"i) Where in a suit for permanent injunction, possession is a sine quo non for granting the relief, when the plaintiff has ad