T. Ravindran, J.

The plaintiffs in this second appeal have impugned the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2010 made in A.S. No. 1 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 19.01.2006 made in O.S. No. 117 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee.

2. The Second Appeal was admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this Second Appeal:

(a) Whether the Courts below are right in giving a finding that the plaintiffs have not proved title over the property, when the suit is for injunction simpliciter as the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue?

(b) Whether the Courts below are right in recording finding regarding the title over the property as the finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Ananthula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, 2008 (4) SCC 594?.

3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction.

4. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons and fourth plaintiff is the wife of one Abdul Majith Sahib. The defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first defendant Abdul Azeez. It is admitted that Abdul Majith Sahib and the first defendant Abdul Azeez are brothers. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties were in the possession and enjoyment of Abdul Majith Sahib for the past 50 years and that he had put up a tiled house, thatched shed, hay rack in the suit properties and also using the same for storing rubbish and for other purposes and also obtained electricity service connection in respect of the usage of the suit properties and recognising his possession, patta has also been granted in his name and thus according to the plaintiffs, Abdul Majith Sahib and after his demise, the plaintiffs are in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and further according to the plaintiffs, the old survey number of the suit properties is S.No. 83/9B and inasmuch as the defendants without any authority attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties, the plaintiffs had been necessitated to lay the suit for permanent injunction.

5. Further, according to the plaintiffs, the defendants against law and without notice seem to have obtained joint patta in respect of the suit properties in their names also and requisition has been given to delete the names of the defendants before the concerned authorities and the suit properties are not in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants.

6. According to the defendants, the suit properties are in the joint possession of the plaintiffs and the defendants and the plaintiffs are not in the possession and enjoyment of the entire suit properties as pleaded and further according to the defendants, in respect of the properties belonging to the joint family including the suit properties, the suit in O.S.No.1411/1979 had been laid for partition and in the said partition, the sharers were allotted the separate properties including the first defendant and therefore according to the defendants, the present suit laid by the plaintiffs is barred by res judicata and estoppel and further, according to the defendants, inasmuch as the daughters of Abdul Majith Sahib have not been included in the suit, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and further according to the defendants, recognising the joint possession of the defendants in respect of the suit properties joint patta had been given in the name of the first defendant also in respect of the suit properties and it is alleged that originally patta had been given wrongly in the name of Abdul Majith Sahib alone and thus according to the defendants, the plaintiffs are not entitled to obtain the relief sought for.

7. The definite case of the defendants is that the plaintiffs are not in the possession and enjoyment of the entire suit properties as put