1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court in dismissing the suit, the present Second Appeal has been filed.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

3. The suit property originally belong to one Arumugam and he is in enjoyment of the same beyond the statutory period without any interruption and disturbance. The said Arumugam executed a General Power of Attorney in respect of the ‘B’ schedule property in favour of the first plaintiff on 27.03.2001. Thereafter, the ‘A’ schedule property was sold to the first plaintiff by the said Arumugam on 24.09.2003. Thereafter, the plaintiff has executed a sale deed on 25.02.2004 with respect of ‘B’ schedule property to the second plaintiff. The ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties are vacant site. The plaintiffs are enjoying the suit property commonly and stored waste materials in the manure pit and also stored Vaikol in the suit property. The defendants are the strangers to the suit properties. They are having vacant site adjacent to the suit properties. They are no way connected with the suit properties. They have made an attempt to trespass into the suit properties on 05.09.2004. Hence, the suit.

4. It is the contention of the defendants that the suit is not maintainable without declaration. Both the plaintiffs have separate interest in the suit properties and hence, the suit is not maintainable. As far as ‘B’ Schedule property is concerned, they have no right or interest in the same. The alleged act of trespass is hereby denied. It is the contention of the first defendant that the ‘A’ schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the second defendant from the date of purchase from the first defendant on 24.9.2003. The ’A’ schedule property was enjoyed for more than 20 years continuously without any interference and prescribed title by adverse possession. The defendants cannot enjoy their property without entering the first item of the suit property. The sale in favour of the first plaintiff in respect of the first item of the property is neither true nor valid. The vendors have no right or interest in the suit property. The document dated 24.09.2003 was created only for the purpose of the suit. It is the further contention of the defendants that in the Power of Attorney dated 27.03.2001 executed in favour of the first plaintiff, one of the boundaries is shown as the second defendant’s land. Hence, disputed the suit.

5. It is the further contention of the plaintiff in their reply statement is that the sale in favour of the second defendant by the first defendant is not valid and the above sale has been registered after the sale in favour of the first plaintiff on 24.09.2003. The first plaintiff has purchased properties on the east of suit properties from Kaliyan and Gunasekaran and the plaintiffs alone are in possession of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties.

6. In the additional written statement it is the contention of the defendants that the rough plan filed along with the reply statement is false and misleading.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues :

1. Whether the sale deeds dated 24.09.2003 and 25.02.3004 in respect of the A and B schedule properties respectively are true and valid one?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for issuance of permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. Whether the suit is maintainable for seeking permanent injunction without seeking a decree of declaration?

4. Whether the defendants attempted to trespass in the suit A schedule property on 05.09.2004?

5. Whether the sale deed dated 24.09.2003 in respect of A schedule property in favour of the second defendant is true?

6. Whether the second defendant has acquired title to the suit property A schedule by way of adverse possession?

7. To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled?

8. Additional Issues :

1. Whether the suit is not maintainable?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession and enjoyme