R. MALA, J.

1. The defendants, who lost the case in both the Courts below have come forward with this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai dated 23.01.2006 in A.S. No. 65 of 2005 confirming the judgment and degree of the District Munsif, Kulithalai dated 27.12.2004 in O.S. No. 219 of 2001.

2. The respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property situated in Thogaimalai Village in S. No. 174/4 to the extent of 0.46.0 hectares and in S. No. 179/11 to the extent of 0.58.0 hectares stating that the property is owned by Lakshmi and Andi Muthiriar under the sale deed dated 02.08.1980 and since they intended to go abroad, they orally sold the same to the grand father of the plaintiff viz., Ponnambalam for Rs.250/- and handed over the original sale deed and possession of the suit property and from that date onwards, said Ponnambalam was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death in 1978. After his death, his only son Mariappan, succeeded the property and after his death, in 20.12.2000, the plaintiff succeeded the property and he was in possession and enjoyment for more than 60 years without any interference. Now, the defendants 1 and 2, who are the junior paternal uncles without any right in the suit property attempted to interfere the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. They have no right over the property. The third defendant claiming title as if he purchased the suit property from the defendants 1 and 2 attempted to interfere the possession of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff has constrained to file the suit for bare injunction.

3. Resisting the same, the appellants/defendants filed a detailed written statement stating that Ponnambalam is not the owner of the property and he was not in possession and enjoyment of the same. The property is originally owned by Thothammai and Kanniammal and after their demise, the property belongs to Ponnambalam, Karuppannan and Vairaperumal and they are entitled each 1/3 share. The third defendant purchased the property from the defendants 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- vide sale deed dated 12.04.2001. From that date onwards, the third defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, openly, continuously and uninterruptedly for more than statutory period. Hence, he prescribed title by adverse possession and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The trial Court, on consideration of the averments both in the plaint and written statement, framed necessary issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence and upon consideration of the argument made on either side, decreed the suit, against which, the defendants preferred an appeal, where the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been confirmed and hence, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants.

5. At the time of admitting the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law has been framed for consideration of the second appeal.”

“Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the plaintiff/respondent is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction without looking into the contention raised on the side of the appellants/defendants?”

Substantial Question of Law No. 1

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the suit property is belonging to one Mahamuni and he had three sons viz., Ponnambalam, Karuppannan and Vairaperumal. The defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Karuppannan. The plaintiff's father Mariappan is the son of Ponnambalam. Mariappan has another children viz., Karuppiah, Mahamuni, Pazhani and Marudhai. The property is ancestral property and hence, they are entitled each 1/3 share and that factim was not considered by the trial Court.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has further submitted that the oral sale for more than Rs.10