The conscious application of mind and compliance with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC are essential for the appellate court's judgment, as emphasized by the legal principles established in the judgments referred to by the court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in S.A.No.1473 of 2011: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.23 of 2006 dated 31.03.2010 on the file Additional District Judge Fast Track Court No.I, Poonamallee confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.530 of 2000 dated 13.07.2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee.

In S.A.No.1474 of 2011: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.32 of 2006 dated 31.03.2010 on the file Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Poonamallee against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.530 of 2000 dated 13.07.2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee.)

Common Judgment:

1. Both the Second Appeals have been filed by the 1st and 2nd defendants in the same Original Suit namely O.S.No.530 of 2000 which was on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee.

2. By judgment dated 13.07.2005, the suit was partly decreed with respect to the reliefs of declaration of title and permanent injunction. With respect to the other reliefs sought, the suit was dismissed.

3. This necessitated two separate appeal suits being filed in A.S.Nos.32 of 2006 filed by the plaintiffs and A.S.No.23 of 2006 filed by the present appellants / 1st and 2nd defendants. Both the appeal suits came up for consideration before the Additional District Court / Fast Track Court Poonamallee and by common judgment dated 31.03.2010, A.S.No.23 of 2006 filed by the present appellants was dismissed and the other appeal suit namely A.S.No.32 of 2006 filed by the plaintiffs was allowed.

4. The grievance raised by the present appellants is that without there being a specific relief sought for recovery of of possession, the learned First Appellate Court Judge had granted such relief under Section 151 of CPC.

5. One other aspect pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in the present case is that points for consideration as stipulated under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC had not been framed by the First Appellate Court.

6. Raising such grievances and urging that those points require examination and that they are substantial questions of law, the present Second Appeals had been argued before me.

7. A perusal of the records shows that though the Second Appeals had been filed in the year 2011 for the past decade and more, though it had been listed before various Single Judges of this Court, the Second Appeals have not yet been admitted and the learned Single Judges had not found any substantial question of law arising, worth admitting the Second Appeals.

8. Mr.Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel for the appellants, stated that, according to him the judgment under appeal has to be interfered owing to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1993 SCC 957, Vinay Krishna V. Keshav Chandra and another.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that particular case was examining a suit for declaration of share in the property filed under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. In that particular case, the plaintiff was not in possession and there were also two other persons and tenants in possession. The plaintiff had failed to seek the relief of recovery of possession. The High Court had however granted such relief of recovery of possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had come down on that particular aspect of granting a relief of recovery of possession when not sought for directly by the plaintiff and therefore, interfered with the particular relief granted by the High Court.

10. Placing reliance on the aforementioned ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mr.Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel stated that the relief granted by the First Appellate Court with respect to grant of recovery of possession claiming powers under Section 151 of CPC should necessarily be interfered with.

11. A brief look at the facts would be advantageous to examine the issues further.

12. The plaintiffs who are the 1st and 2nd respondents herein claimed right, title and own