1. The present Second Appeal was brought by the Plaintiff in whose favour the judgment and decree granted by the Trial Court having been reversed by the First Appellate Court complaining that the First Appellate Court ought not to have interdicted the conclusion reached by the Trial Court on acceptable reasons, based on sufficient evidence produced by the Plaintiff before the Trial Court.

2. This Court at the time of entertaining the Second Appeal framed two substantial questions of law for consideration and they are as follows:

“1. When on the admitted facts of the case, the Appellant (Petitioner) is a Tenant and was in possession on the date of Suit, still is the learned Subordinate Judge right in dismissing the Suit?

2.) Is the learned Subordinate Judge right in not moulding the relief especially when the Appellant proved his tenancy and possession?”

3. (i) The Plaintiff/Appellant herein has originally filed a Suit for injunction against his own wife-1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant-the brother of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff/Appellant herein has purchased the superstructure with leasehold right from one Sundarambal, another lessee of the same suit property.