T. RAVINDRAN, J.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2004 passed in A.S. No. 36 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai reversing the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2003 passed in O.S. No. 154 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law.

"1. Whether the lower appellate court is justified in relying on documents marked in some other suit without proper proof in the manner known to law?

2. Whether the lower appellate court is erred in not framing proper points arising for consideration as mandated by order 41 rule 31 of CPC?

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

5. Suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that she had purchased the suit property from one Balasubramania Iyer and enjoying the same for more than