The failure to prove possession and the existence of a decree from an earlier suit for injunction against the appellants led to the dismissal of the second appeal. The dismissal of the suit for injunction does not prevent the appellants from maintaining a suit for recovery of possession or any other relief.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2013 made in A.S.No.231 of 2012 on the file of the Ist Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2012 made in O.S.No.944 of 1995 on the file of Principle District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Lalgudi.)

1. The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. They filed a suit for bare injunction and the same was dismissed. The first appeal filed by the appellants before the first appellate Court was also dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellants are before this Court.

2. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, they are absolute owners of the suit property. They claimed title to the suit property under a Will executed by his maternal aunt, Anandayee Ammal, dated 25.04.1979. It was averred in the plaint that the respondents are the southern owners of the suit property and they had no right over the same. It was the case of the appellants that from 07.07.1991 onwards, the respondents tried to interfere with the possession of the appellants and hence, they were constrained to file a suit for bare injunction.

3. The respondents herein filed a written statement admitting that the appellants are the owners of the suit property. However, the respondents claimed that they are the cultivating tenants of the suit property. It was averred by the respondents that they had been raising vegetable crops in the suit property by contributing their physical labours. It was further averred that the father of the deceased first defendant, namely, Vaithi Muthuraja was a cultivating tenant of the suit property under the predecessor of the appellants, Anandayee Ammal. The said Anandayee Ammal filed a suit for recovery of possession against Vaithi Muthuraja in O.S.No.220 of 1971, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichy, on the ground that Vaithi Muthuraja was holding over the property after expiry of the lease period. The said suit was decreed. However, the respondents had been continuously in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It was also alleged that there was a fresh lease deed executed on 10.06.1998 between the appellants and the respondents.

4. The trial Court, on consideration of evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the appellants failed to establish their possession over the suit property and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed an appeal in A.S.No.231 of 2012 on the file of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The first appellate Court had also rendered the finding that the decree passed in O.S.No.2319 of 1992 filed by the deceased first defendant Manivel against the appellants would operate as res judicata on the present suit. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the appellants are before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants tried to assail the findings rendered by the Courts below on the ground that the respondents having pleaded cultivating tenancy in respect of the suit property, failed to establish the same by any acceptable evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the decree passed in O.S.No.2319 of 1992 against the appellants would not operate as res judicata as the said suit was decreed ex parte without hearing the appellants. The learned counsel further submitted that the judgment and pleadings in the earlier suit were not produced by the respondents. So that without perusing the pleadings and judgment in the earlier suit, the first appellate Court ought not to have come to a conclusion that the decree in O.S.No.2319 of 1992 would operate as res judicata against the present suit for bare injunction.

6. The copy of Ex.B7 is produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On perus