The validity of title and possession can be established by evidence of possession and enjoyment, and pending appeals may not discredit such established title and possession.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 25.06.2003 passed in A.S.No.45 of 2001, on the file of the Sub Court Sankari, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2001 passed in O.S.No.108 of 1998, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari.

2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

3. Suit for permanent injunction.

4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that the suit properties, village natham lands are in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs for more than 30 years and considering their possession and enjoyment, the plaintiffs had been granted HSD patta nos.118 to 121/1403, dated 07.10.93, respectively, in respect of the plaint A to D schedule properties and accordingly, the plaintiffs are enjoying the suit properties by paying necessary kists to the Government and further, the plaintiffs are enjoying the suit properties by raising natural herbs, small trees etc., and other than the plaintiffs no one is entitled to be in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. While so, the defendants, who are strangers to the suit properties, having no right or title with reference to the same, attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties and left with no other alternative, the plaintiffs had been necessitated to obtain the necessary relief’s against the defendants and hence the suit.

5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to state that the plaintiffs had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for more than 30 years and on account of their possession and enjoyment, they had been granted HSD pattas in respect of the suit properties. According to the defendants, no valid patta has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs and it is false to state that the plaintiffs are paying necessary kists to the Government with reference to the suit properties and enjoying the same by raising trees etc. It is false to state that the defendants are attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiffs have no right or title to the suit properties and not in the possession and enjoyment of the same and the defendants have preferred an appeal petition to the RDO against the patta granted in favour of the plaintiffs an the same is pending and hence, the suit laid without any cause of action is liable to be dismissed.

6. In support of the plaintiffs' case PWs 1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On the side of the defendants DW1 was examined, Ex.B1 was marked.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit. On appeal, the first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials placed, set-aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and by way of allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, decreed the suit as prayed for. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has come to be laid.

8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:

1. Whether in law the first appellate Court is right in omitting to note that the order of the Deputy Tahsildar in Ex.B1 has become final and the very claim of the plaintiffs right based on Exs.A1 to A4 are in question in appeal before the R.D.O. in Appeal No.1004 of 1998 as per the provisions of Survey and Boundaries Act?

2. Whether the decision of the first appellate Court is vitiated for non consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence in reversing the judgment of the trial Court especially when there is no document in favour of the plaintiffs to disprove the possession of the defendants over the suit property?

9. It is seen that the suit properties are vill