1. The defendants' trust is the appellant herein. This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.11 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Court, Pattukottai, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.97 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai.

2. The suit is filed by the respondent herein for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants or their men from any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as lessee. The suit reliefs is claimed in respect of 7-1/2 cents out of 1 acre and 27 cents in S.No.86L/2, Periyakadai Street, Pattukottai, comprised within the four boundaries notefully described in the suit schedule. The suit was filed by one Samikannu represented by his Power Agent on the premises that the suit property belonged to the defendants' trust and one Thirunavukkarasu, who is none else than the brother of Samikannu, was given permanent lease for 99 years in respect of 3 and 4-1/2 cents in S.No.86L/2 by two registered lease deeds, dated 13.07.1978 and 02.02.1981, respectively, executed by the then trustee of the defendants trust and since then, Thirunavukkarasu has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit extent as lessee of the defendants trust and in the family partition, effected on 27.01.1992, between the plaintiff Samikannu and his brother Thirunavukkarasu, the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been using the same as backyard for his multi-storied commercial complex and lodge situated on the east and north of the suit property by raising coconut trees and the same is sought to be interfered with by the defendants.

3. The suit relief is seriously opposed by the defendant trust, who is admittedly the owner of the property, by denying the genuineness and valid execution of Exs.A1 and A2, lease deeds and Ex.A3 family arrangement and the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the property in pursuance of the family arrangement. According to the defendants' trust, the possession is continued to be with the defendants' trust cum owner.

4. With the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for its determination in the suit;

"a)Whether the plaintiff is a permanent resident of Singapore, if so, whether he has to be non-suited under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act?

b) Whether the two lease deeds relied upon by the plaintiff have been acted upon and have been given effect?

c) Is it correct to say that the lease deeds are not true and valid and they do not relate to the suit property?

d) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as claimed by him?

e) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties?"

5. The parties in order to prove their respective claim examined the power agent of the plaintiff and his witnesses and the third defendant and their witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and DW1 and DW2 and have produced Exs.A1 to A5 and B1 to B9 documents.

6. The trial Court, on the basis of the available evidence, arrived at a conclusion that Exs.A1 and A2, lease deeds are true, valid and acted upon and the lessee Thirunavukkarasu had been put in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in pursuance of the lease deeds. The trial Court has, however, not accepted the plaintiff’s claim of possession and enjoyment of the suit property, in pursuance of the family arrangement and the trial Court, having found that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession and enjoyment of the suit property, held that the plaintiff is disentitled to the relief of permanent injunction and hence, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.11 of 2007. The lower appellate Court, on the basis of the respective claim made by the parties and the nature of the controversy in issue and the finding of the trial Court in the light of the evidence, framed the following points for its det