JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. to review the order, dated 25.09.2018 in S.A.No.2003 of 2000 passed by this Court.)

1. This application has been filed by the respondents in S.A.No.2003 of 2000 seeking review of the judgment, dated 25.09.2018.

2. Heard Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.T.Balaji, learned Counsel for the second respondent.

3. The defendant in O.S.No.223 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thirupathur is the appellant in S.A.No.2003 of 2000. O.S.No.223 of 1995 had been filed by Kulanthai Therasu and Alphones for declaration of title or in the alternate, declaration of possessory title and consequential injunction to protect possession with respect to punja land measuring 1.22.0 hectares in Nemam Village, Thriuppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

4. The learned District Munsif held that the plaintiffs had claimed title on the basis of an unregistered sale deed and observed that the unregistered document is not admissible in evidence and no relief can be granted on the basis of the said document. It was held that the plaintiffs cannot be granted the relief of declaration or the relief of possessory title. The suit was dismissed.

5. The plaintiffs filed A.S.No.132 of 1998 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivagangai. The learned Subordinate Judge, held that the execution of unregistered sale deed, Ex-A3, had been proved by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. It was further held that the terms in the deed can be examined for collateral purpose determining the possession. Therefore, a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from the disturbing the possession was granted. The defendants then filed the above second appeal.

6. In the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law had been framed:

“1. Whether the Appellate Judge is right in reversing the well considered findings of the Trial Court?

2. On the available facts and circumstances of the case, whether the learned Judge is right in granting the relief of possessory title, without applying the law laid down by this Honourable Court reported in 1999 (3) L. W. 727?”

7. The second substantial question of law revolves around the judgment reported in 1999 (3) L.W. 727 in the case of R.Krishnasamy vs Mani Janagarajan. It was held in that case that a relief of injunction cannot be granted against the true owner or against the person having better title. In the above second appeal, Section 54 of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 Act were examined and thereafter, it had been held as follows:

“18. Ex.A.3 has been perused by me. It is written in Tamil. It contains three sheets. The first sheet is written in a Rs. 5/-stamp paper. The second and third sheets are plain green sheets. The left thumb impression of the defendant Savariammal has been affixed in each page. The document has been attested by R.M.Veerappan, Government Pleader and Notary, Devakottai. He had attested and stated that the thumb impression was affixed before him. He was not examined as witness in the Court. This is a very significant, because even in the evidence it had come out that the document was prepared and executed in the office of the said Advocate R.M.Veerappan. P.W.2 & P.W.3 are witnesses of the document. The witnesses also affixed their thumb impressions. The document is also attested on the last page by the President of Nemam Village, Panchayat Union. Even that person was not examined as witness to the document. This also assumes significance, because the defendant had clearly stated that she did not know anything about the contents in the said document and that her thumb impression was obtained without reading and explaining the written matter. She claimed to be an illterate person.”

8. Thereafter, in paragraph 23, it had been held as follows:

“23. In the present case, Clause 5 applies and it is clear that if the document is inadmissible in evi