In injunction suits, possession is the critical issue, and title cannot be determined without a counter-claim for adverse possession.

JUDGMENT

*************

The plaintiffs in the suit for bare injunction are the appellants. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were reversed by the First Appellate Court.

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court.

2.According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the total extent of land available in old S.No.230 was 5 acres and 65 cents. The suit property originally belong to Veerappa Pallavarayar and his brother Ramasamy.They sold 1 acre and 33 cents in favour of one Chellan by sale deed, dated 22.05.1916. The said Chellan sold the property to Ramasamy and he in-turn sold the property to the plaintiffs father Raman by sale deed, dated 6.7.1946. Thus claiming right and possession over 1 acre and 33 cents in suit S.No.230, the present suit was filed by the plaintifffs. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants predecessor-in-interest had allotted three cents in the suit survey number for pathway and the remaining 4 acre and 49 cents had been in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants. It was also claimed that old S.No.230 was subsequently sub-divided in re-settlement as New S.NO. 230/1 and S.No.230/2.The entire extent in S.No.230/2 namely, 2 acre and 25 cents belongs to the plaintiffs. The remaining extent of 8 cents that was available to the plaintiffs in old survey number lies in S.No.230/1. Taking advantage of the fact that the entire extent in S.No.230/1 was registered in the name of the defendants in revenue records, they attempted to interefere with the plaintiffs possession and hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for bare injunction

3.The defendants filed a written statement and resisted the suit by claiming that they have been in possession and enjoyment of 4 acre and 40 cents in S.No.230/1. It is the case of the defendants that patta for S.No.230/1 with an extent of 4 acre and 40 cents was given to the defendants after taking into consideration the possession of the defendants, on ground. It is the specific case of the defendants that they purchased only 4 acre and 32 cents and they have been in possession and enjoyment of 4 acres and 40 cents with a ridge dividing their property from the property of the plaintiffs. Thus denying the possession of the plaintiffs over 8 cents in S.No.230/1, in respect of which,the present suit was filed, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs proved their possession over 8 cents of the suit property and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.NO.8 of 1998, on the file of Additional District Court-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit property and consequently, reversed the finding of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.

5.At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law by order, dated 13.07.2000:

1.Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in holding that the respondents/defendants have perfected title by adverse possession, in a suit for injunction filed by the plainiff?

2.Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in Law in not applying the principles that in a suit for bare injunction, the question of title is only incidental and the same alone cannot be the criteria for deciding the question of possession of the suit property?

6.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the title of the appellants/plainiffs over 1 acre and 33 cents was admitted by the defendants and in such circumstances, the First Appellate Court ought not to have negatived the prayer for injunction in respect of 8 cents in S.No.230/1 merely because revenue records stands in the name of the defendants. The learned counsel for