The central legal point established in the judgment is that ownership of the license is crucial in determining the right to claim relief of permanent injunction, and factual evidence plays a significant role in such determinations.

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.1997 made in A.S. No.45 of 1996 on the file of Learned First Additional District Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.

2. The First Appellate Court viz. the Learned First Additional District Judge -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode while passing the Judgment dated 28.02.1997 in A.S. No.45 of 1996 has among other things observed that the Appellant/Plaintiff has been helping his Father viz. Respondent/Defendant and when the Respondent/ Defendant (Father) has obtained the licence, then the Appellant/ Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of injunction against the Respondent/Defendant and resultantly dismissed the Appeal without costs.

3. Before the Trial Court in the suit filed by the Appellant/ Plaintiff, two issues have been framed for determination. On the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff witnesses PW1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.A1 to A13 have been marked. On the side of the Respondent/ Defendant witnesses DW1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.B1 to B11 have been marked.

4. The Trial Court on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on records has come to the conclusion that "though the Appellant/Plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property, since only the Respondent/Defendant has obtained the licence in his name and when the Appellant/Plaintiff has not established his right as against the Respondent/Defendant, the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief in the suit and consequently the suit has been dismissed, directing the parties to bear their own costs.

5. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree passed by the First Appellate Court viz. the First Additional District Judge -cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in A.S. No.45 of 1996 dated 28.02.1997, the Appellant/Plaintiff has projected the Second Appeal before this Court.

6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Is not the admission being the substantial evidence amount to Estoppel to deny the Appellants title?

2. Have not both the courts below committed an error of law in not holding that the above admission in the absence of withdrawal and explanation is binding on the Respondent/Defendant?

7. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on substantial question of law 1 and 2:

According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, both the courts below have committed error in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant/Plaintiff is not a Licensee -cum- Lessee that the Municipality and as such is not entitled to the relief of injunction and this Finding of the courts below is contrary to Law and Evidence.

8. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff contends that both the courts have not given due weight to the admission made by the Respondent/Defendant (Father) that he has given up his interest in the shop and that the Appellant/Plaintiff alone has been in occupation by conducting the business exclusively and indeed, the said admission is fatal to the stand of the Respondent/Defendant and on that ground alone the suit ought to have been decreed by the courts below.

9. It the further contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff that the licence standing in the name of the Respondent/Defendant (Father) is totally irrelevant among members of the one and the same family and that apart it is not open to the Respondent/Defendant (Father) to approbate and reprobate in the matter in issue.

10. The pith and substance of the contention projected by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff is that both the courts below have not taken into account of the factual aspects of the matter in a proper perspective which has ultimately resulted in an erroneous Judgment being passed against the Appellant/Plaintiff and therefore prays for allowing the Appeal