1. The present Second Appeal was brought by the Plaintiff in whose favour the judgment and decree granted by the Trial Court having been reversed by the First Appellate Court complaining that the First Appellate Court ought not to have interdicted the conclusion reached by the Trial Court on acceptable reasons, based on sufficient evidence produced by the Plaintiff before the Trial Court.

2. This Court at the time of entertaining the Second Appeal framed two substantial questions of law for consideration and they are as follows:

“1. When on the admitted facts of the case, the Appellant (Petitioner) is a Tenant and was in possession on the date of Suit, still is the learned Subordinate Judge right in dismissing the Suit?

2.) Is the learned Subordinate Judge right in not moulding the relief especially when the Appellant proved his tenancy and possession?”

3. (i) The Plaintiff/Appellant herein has originally filed a Suit for injunction against his own wife-1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant-the brother of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff/Appellant herein has purchased the superstructure with leasehold right from one Sundarambal, another lessee of the same suit property. The 3rdDefendant is Arulmighu Agatheeswarar Swamy Temple, represented by its Executive Officer, Vellipalayam, Nagapattinam Town.

ii) When the Plaintiff/Appellant herein has purchased the superstructure along with the leasehold right of the superstructure from the erstwhile lessee, by name, Sundarambal, it appears that there has been difference of opinion between the Plaintiff and his wife/the 1st Defendant. As a result, the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s wife had filed a Suit for maintenance after leaving the matrimonial home in O.S. No.252/1998. During the pendency of that Suit, the Plaintiff/Appellant herein in an effort to put a quietus to the matrimonial dispute arisen between the Plaintiff/Appellant herein and the 1st Defendant, appeared to have entered into a compromise and as a result, a Release Deed Ex.B7 dated 30.8.2000 was executed. The Sale Deed dated 28.8.2000 is marked as Ex.B8 and the same is said to have executed between the Plaintiff/Appellant herein and 1st Defendant. Subsequently, when the 1st and 2nd Defendant have jointly let out the suit premises to other tenants, a Suit was brought by the Plaintiff/Appellant herein praying a decree for bare injunction against the 1st & 2nd Defendants restraining them front interfering with the suit property. Yet another prayer was also made restraining them from alienating or changing the lease hold right.

iii) The Trial Court considering the case of both sides and the evidence produced by the Plaintiff/Appellant herein that the suit property has been in possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff, decreed the Suit as prayed for by disbelieving the case presented before it by the Defendants. Another reason for which the Trial Court decreed the Suit by disbelieving the case of the Defendants was when the 1st Defendant relied upon Ex.B.7-Release Deed dated 30.8.2000 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of her wife D1, finding that it was unstamped and unregistered, hence it cannot be looked into in favour of D1, accepting the case of the Plaintiff/Appellant herein that the date of execution of Release Deed-Ex.B7, releasing the leasehold right in favour of the 1st Defendant being 30.8.2000, the Plaintiff’s signature was found only on 2.9.2000, but the attestors-DW2 & DW3 have signed the Release Deed much prior to the signature put by the Plaintiff, namely on 30.8.2000, the Trial Court disbelieving the execution of Ex.B7 not only on the ground that the attestors of Ex.B7 have failed to put their signature on the date the Plaintiff said to have signed, namely, on 2.9.2000 but also on the ground that the Release Deed was unstamped and unregistered, decreed the suit for injunction against the Defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

iv) The learned Counsel appearing