Mr. K. Kannan J.: - The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the second appeal.

1. Whether the plaintiff’s claim for injunction could be decreed without adjudging the issue of title in favour of the plaintiff ?

2. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the trial Court failing to note that the plaintiff had failed to establish the document propounded by him to conform to the boundaries as brought out in the document and evidence ?

3. Whether the plaintiff’s claim to title is established by the defendants’ own admission through the application filed as Ex.D1 that identified the suit property typically in the same fashion as the plaintiff himself has set out in his own plan except for varying minor discrepancies ?

2. The plaintiff’s suit for injunction was dismissed at the trial Court but on appeal by the plaintiff it was decreed. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff’s suit for injunction was filed on a claim by him that he had purchased the property that set out specific boundaries and measurements through a document dated 18.02.1957 and he had been using the same for tethering cattle. The defendants had ownership of property on South of his own property but the defendants were attempting to lay false claim to the same compelling the plaintiff to suit for relief. The defendants’ contention was that the property purchased by the plaintiff did not refer to the suit property at all and the measurements given under the document were to be seen. On the East, the property was shown to be 6' gali but the plaintiff was making claim for more than 36 ½’. There was only a reference to Arur Singh as the owner in the South but in the plan given by the plaintiff, there was a lane on the South which did not fit in description found in the sale deed. The trial Court accepted the defence and found material variations in the manner in which the property was described in suit and in the sale deed and held that the plaintiff’s case for possession was not established and dismissed it.

3. The Appellate Court relied on the evidence given by the parties relating to possession and held that the sale deed actually referred only to the suit property and the description of the property on the South as of Arur Singh was the defendants’ own property and the reference to a lane on the South was only a passage that had been provided for access to go from the lane on the East towards her property on the West. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court is assailed by the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contending that the trial Court’s judgment regarding the material variations in the description found in the sale deed and the document as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint had not been duly appreciated and brings home for consideration that the plaintiff who sues for injunction cannot secure the relief without proving title since the property was merely a vacant site. The counsel would also argue that even if there was some discrepancy regarding the linear measurements in case of any inconsistency between measurements and boundaries, the boundaries alone would prevail. The substantial questions of law that I have already framed also pertain to the arguments canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.

4. Though the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents wanted to down play the issue of title by saying that he had not sought for title and that he has only asked for the relief of injunction on the basis of possession, I must observe that the nature of possession of the property in suit is such that the relief of injunction itself will not be possible without proving title. It is axiomatic that in respect of vacant lands, possession would follow title. In this case, although the attempt was made by the plaintiff to say that he was in possession of the property by tethering cattle and relied on the evidence of one Kewal Krishan adjoining the