JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2019 passed in A.S. No.19 of 2017 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, whereby the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2017 in O.S. No.710 of 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Dindigul, was reversed.

3. For convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranks as in the trial court.

4. At the time of admitting the Second Appeal on 19.07.2019, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration, which are extracted verbatim below:

I. Whether the 1^st appellate court was correct in allowing the appeal on the wrong notion as though the respondent is a co-owner along with the plaintiff, relying on the boundary recitals mentioned in the sale deed Ex A5, when it is not the case of the respondent that he is the co-owner?

II. Whether the 1^st appellate court is correct in disallowing mandatory injunction when all th