The central legal point established is that possession follows title, and in the absence of evidence supporting a claim of possession, ownership rights prevail. The court also emphasized the application of the doctrine of res judicata in evaluating the plaintiff's claim.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.11.2016, passed in A.S.No.39 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, reversing the Judgment and Decree, dated 04.07.2014, passed in O.S.No.240 of 2012, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam.

2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The plaintiff laid the suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction, claiming that she had purchased the suit property by way of a registered sale deed, dated 13.11.1992 and the defendant approached her for the sale of the suit property in the year 1995 and accordingly, the sale agreement, dated 25.01.1995 had come to be executed between the parties for the sale consideration of Rs.51,500/- and the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as advance and though the time of six months had been fixed for the payment of the balance sale consideration, the defendant failed to pay the said amount and on the other hand, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and resultantly, according to the plaintiff, she had levied the suit, in O.S.No.266 of 1997, against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Valangaiman and the said suit ended in a decree in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant laid O.S.No.173 of 1997 against the plaintiff seeking the relief of specific performance by enforcing the sale agreement, dated 25.01.1995 and in the said suit, a decree had been passed in favour of the defendant, on 27.07.1998, and the defendant preferred the execution proceedings and without serving notice on the plaintiff, it is stated that the defendant had obtained the sale deed from the Court in his favour in respect of the suit property and the plaintiff is enjoying the suit property by putting up a thatched shed and also doing business, through her agent, and accordingly, resisting the defendant's action in grabbing the suit property, based on the above said sale deed and only thereafter, the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the sale deed in favour of the defendant in the execution proceedings and the defendant had not taken the possession of the suit property, through the Court process and therefore, in order to prevent the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property, without due process of law, according to the plaintiff, she has been necessitated to lay the suit for the appropriate relief.

4. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the plaintiff has not come out with the clean hands and based on the decree obtained by the defendant in O.S.No.173 of 1997, laid for specific performance and the defendant had obtained the sale deed, through the Court process and accordingly, the defendant had become the owner of the suit property and the same cannot be disputed by the plaintiff and as per the decree passed in O.S.No.173 of 1997, based on the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant, the defendant had obtained the possession of the suit property and enjoying the same and thereafter, the defendant had settled the suit property in favour of his son Kumaravelu, by a deed of settlement, dated 18.05.2012 and also contended that since the date of the sale agreement, the suit property has been in his possession and enjoyment and after the settlement deed, dated 18.05.2012, his son is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, the suit laid by the plaintiff, without impleading his son, is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties and when according to the plaintiff, she has already obtained the relief of permanent injunction against him in O.S. No. 226 of 1997, there is no need for the plaintiff to seek the same relief in the present suit and therefore, the present suit is hit by the principle of res judicata and it is only