P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.

1. The plaintiffs in the original suit O.S. No. 53 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Rasipuram are the appellants in the second appeal. They had filed the above said suit against the respondent herein for a permanent injunction restraining him or any person acting on behalf of or claiming through the respondent herein, from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by providing any hindrance to such possession or by trespassing into the suit property and also for costs.

2. The suit was resisted by the respondent herein contending that the plaintiffs, by filing the present suit had made an attempt to stake claim to a part of a property which was lost by their father in an earlier suit viz. O.S. No. 58 of 1979 decided by the very same court and contending further that the suit property of the present suit was nothing but a part of the property that was the subject matter of the above said former suit.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs, on the other hand, have contended that the earlier suit was filed by their father in respect of an extent of 14 cents of land in which the over head tank belonging to the respondent panchayat is located and that the said property abuts Oduvankurichi road whereas the present suit property is 4725 sq. ft. (1750+1800+1175) of land which is lying on the east of the property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit.

4. The learned trial Judge conducted trial in which three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and six documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A6. Four more documents that were produced by witness summoned by the appellants/plaintiffs viz., P.W.3 on the side of the appellants herein/plaintiffs were marked as Exs.X1 to X4. One witness was examined as D.W.1 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B7 on the side of the respondent herein/defendant. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge accepted the contentions of the appellants herein/plaintiffs that the suit property regarding which the present suit had been filed had nothing to do with the property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit filed by the father of the appellants herein. It also held that the suit property lies on the east of the property which was the subject matter of the earlier suit and that the appellants/plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Based on the above said findings, the learned trial Judge held that the appellants/plaintiffs were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for by the appellants/plaintiffs in the plaint. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit and granted the relief of permanent injunction with cost.

5. The said decree of the trial court dated 20.08.2001 came to be challenged by the respondent herein before the lower Appellate Judge viz. Sub Judge, Namakkal in A.S. No. 165 of 2001. The learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal (Lower Appellate Judge) after hearing, allowed the appeal with costs, set aside the decree dated 20.08.2001 passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. The judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court came to be passed on 31.08.2005. Aggrieved by and challenging the decree of the lower appellate court dated 31.08.2005, the present second appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal.

6. Though several grounds have been raised in the grounds of second appeal, Section 100 of CPC Permits an appeal being preferred against the appellate decree of a court subordinate to the High Court only on a substantial question or substantial questions of law. Sub Clause (3) of Section 100 CPC contemplates that the memorandum of appeal shall precisely set the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. Sub Clause (4) of Section 100 CPC deals with the procedure to be followed by the High Court at the time of admission. It says whe