The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish possession in a suit for injunction and the admissibility of evidence in the appellate stage for rendering justice.

1. The present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff as against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, in A.S.No.37 of 2004 on 26.07.2006, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 10.07.2003, passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai in O.S.No.420 of 2001.

2. Brief facts that led to the filing of the second appeal are narrated as under:-

The appellant herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court, who filed the suit for restraining the defendants in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, on the ground that the suit property was originally allotted to the plaintiff's father as per the registered partition deed, dated 10.10.1958, under 'C' schedule. After the death of the plaintiff's father-Rajagopal in the year 1985, the plaintiff's mother-Rajavalli, his brother-Nagendran and his sister-Vairaselvi, are to inherit the same. The plaintiff managed the suit property by raising plantain trees and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property without any disturbance or hindrance from anyone. While so, the defendants, being strangers to the suit property, attempted to change the patta in their favour in respect of R.S.Nos.474/1 and 476/1, hence, the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice to the defendants on 28.09.2001. Since the defendants are powerful persons in that locality and they would even go to the extent of cutting down the plantain trees cultivated, the suit was filed for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

3. Opposing the said claim, a detailed written statement was filed, stating that Rajagopal Padayachy was allotted R.S. Nos.475/2, 475/3 and 475/4. All the three survey nos. were clubbed together as R.S.No.475/2 comprising 1 acre of land. Subsequently, on 09.10.1969, an unregistered exchange arrangement was entered into between Thiyagarajan and Rajagopal and as per the said exchange, R.S.No.475/2, measuring 1 acre was allotted to Thiyagarajan and Rajagopal was allotted R.S.No.474/1, measuring 80 cents and R.S.No.476/1 measuring 43 cents. From the date of the said exchange arrangement, Thiyagarajan and his family members continued to enjoy the land in R.S.No.475/2, measuring 1 acre 4 cents in their own right by raising plantain trees therein. Neither the plaintiff nor his father can lay any claim over the suit property. Without knowing the actual position, the plaintiff erroneously relying upon old partition deed, dated 10.10.1958, filed the present suit, hence, the suit should be rejected.

4. The trial Court, accepting the case of the plaintiff, decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, when appeal was preferred, the learned first appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present Second Appeal by the plaintiff.

5. This Court, while entertaining the Second Appeal, has framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:-

i) Whether the judgment of Lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside in its holding un-registered unstamped exchange deed is admissible in evidence overlooking Section 35 of the Stamp Act and Sections 17 and 49 of Registration Act?

ii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in allowing respondents to raise additional evidence when ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC are not satisfied?

iii) Whether the judgment of lower appellate court is sustainable in law for its failure to advert to the entire oral evidence on record independently, especially when reversing the Trial Court's findings?

6. While addressing on the substantial questions of law, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that it is an admitted fact by both sides that there was a family partition as early as on 10.10.1958 among Natesa Padayachi, Thiagarajan and Rajagopal, and as per such partition, 'A' schedule pr