JUDGMENT :

P. VADAMALAI, J.

1. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 02.03.2017 passed in A.S.No.39 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Karur, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 27.10.2014 passed in O.S.No.704 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.704 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur. The respondents are the defendants in that suit. The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit for bare injunction.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in O.S.No.704 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Karur.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that one R.Ramasamy Mudaliar was the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of registered partition deed dated 15.06.1943. The said Ramasamy Mudaliar is the grandfather of the principal/ plaintiff Manickavasagam. He executed a registered general power of attorney dated 06.11.2002 in favour of his power agent, P.Nagrajan, to deal with the suit property on his behalf. The defendants approached the plaintiff to purchase the suit property for a meager price. The plaintiff refused. So, the defendants attempted to obstruct the enjoyment of the plaintiff on 12.11.2002. The acts of the defendants are illegal as they have no manner of right over the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking a relief of permanent injunction.

5. It is the case of the defendants that the alleged power deed came into existence just a week prior to filing of the suit. The defendants are having land adjacent to the suit property. The description of the suit property is not correct. The suit property is situated northern side of the defendants' property and they were draining the excess water from their property for long time. The suit property originally belonged to one Janaki, who is the wife of one Advocate Vedanthachari, both are now no more. There was a civil suit in O.S.No.302 of 1976 between the said Janakiammal and others, that suit was decreed in favour of Janakiammal. This fact was very well known to the plaintiff. The defendants purchased the suit property from the son of Janakiammal under a registered sale deed, dated 30.10.2002. The plaintiff is not aware of the history of land. The first defendant purchased 2024 sq.ft. which is situated immediately on the eastern side of the plaintiff’s principal’s land. The suit is filed for 90000 sq.ft. At the time of inspection by the commissioner, the first defendant’s land alone was shown as suit property. The defendants alone were disturbed by the plaintiff and his principal. The plaintiff has no prima facie case. The suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. The trial Court has framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

(2) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

7. During the trial, on the plaintiff's side, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 & P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 were marked. On the defendants' side, two witnesses were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5 were marked. In addition, Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2 were also marked.

8. After hearing both sides, the learned Additional District Munsif, Karur, decreed the suit in O.S.No.704 of 2002 by passing judgment and decree, dated 27.10.2024. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants preferred the first civil appeal in A.S.No.39 of 2014 before the Principal Sub Court, Karur. The first Appellate Court, after hearing both sides, passed judgment, dated 02.03.2017, allowed the appeal by reversing the judgment & decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit in O.S.No.704 of 2002.

9. Challenging the Appellate Court findings the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal and the same has been admitted on 11.01.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:-

i) When the plaintiff claiming over an extent of 90,000 sq.ft. land and the defendant produci