1. This Second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 passed in A.S.No.15 of 2012 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2012 in O.S.No.174 of 2008 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit setting out various averments, the epitome, and the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

The plaintiff while he was a minor, one Ramasamy Padayachi executed an unregistered settlement deed dated 31.08.1954 relating to four cents of land worth Rs.50 in favour of the minor, citing the minor's father as the guardian. Ever since that time, the said guardian was in possession and enjoyment of the said four cents of land and on the plaintiff attaining majority, the said property was handed over to him and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the defendant who is a neighbour, having no right over it attempted to trespass into it; whereupon the suit for injunction was necessitated.

4. Per contra, inveighing and refuting, challenging and impugning the plaint averments, the defendant filed the written statement, which would tersely and briefly run thus:

Originally an extent of 12 cents of land including the suit property belonged to one Rangasamy Padayachi, who had three sons namely (1) Poovaragamoorthy, (2) Kuppusamy and (3) Ramasamy. The settlement deed referred to in the plaint is a forged and fabricated one, under which the plaintiff cannot claim any right or title. The defendant's father on two occasions purchased an extent of four cents and five cents, totally nine cents from Poovaragamoorthy, leaving three cents on the eastern side out of the twelve cents. As such, the suit is a misconceived one and it is bad for suppression of material of facts. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues.

6. Up went the trial, during which the plaintiff/Viswalingam examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2/Jayaraman and marked Exs.A1 to A10; and the defendant/Balasubramaniam examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 / Sundaramoorthy and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

7. Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit as against which the defendant preferred appeal, whereupon the appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the original suit.

8. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this Second Appeal has been focussed on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in not applying section 90 of the Evidence Act for the Settlement deed dated 31.08.1954 (Exhibit A1), is sustainable in law?

(2) Whether the conclusion of the first Appellate Court that the subsequently executed settlement deed Exhibit B1 sic (Ex.B3) dated 11.06.1955 is a valid document, is sustainable in law, without setting aside the earlier settlement deed dated 31.08.1954

(Exhibit A1) by the same settlor in respect of the same property?

(3) Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in denying the relief in a suit for permanent injunction when the possession and enjoyment of suit property has been established by the Appellant beyond doubt, is sustainable in law?

(4) Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the suit without appreciating the oral evidence in its entirety but appreciating the above oral and documentary evidence at fraction is sustainable in law?"

(extracted as such)

9. At the outset, I recollect and call up the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012(8) SCC 148 [Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another]; an excerpt from it would run thus:

"59. Section 100 CPC provides for a second appeal only on the substantial question of law. Generally, a second