(PRAYER : This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil  Procedure Code, to set aside 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 District Munsif Court, Karur.)

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  producing a title deed in respect of smaller extent  of 3000 sq.ft. is not the lower Court wrongly  dismissed the suit in entirety?                  ii) Whether the finding of the first appellate  Court in respect of earlier judgment and decree  passed in O.S.No.302 of 1976 by holding that the  same is binding on the appellant/plaintiff is valid  in law?                  iii) Whether the first appellate Court  judgment and decree is legally right in mainly  relying on the commission report that is with  reference to physical features since the same  cannot give any right or interest to the parties to  the suit?10. Both side arguments were heard and they have also filed notes of  arguments.   11. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has argued that the  plaintiff traces title from the registered partition deed Ex.A.3 dated 17.02.1926,  which is 100 years old document. So, as per Section 90 of the Indian Evidence  Act, it is an authenticated document. By virtue of Ex.A.3, the suit property was  conveyed in favour of the plaintiff’s grandfather Ramasamy Mudaliar through  Ex.A.2, dated 09.07.1943. Ex.A.1 is the power deed. Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are  showing the same boundary for the suit property. The defendants are having  land on the northern side of the suit property. The defendants claim that they  were passing drained water through the suit property, if so, they cannot be the  owners of the property, because the right of easement can be claimed only  through property of another. The defendants have not produced any document  to show that the suit property is a poramboke land. Even for the sake of  argument, to substantiate claim by way of easementary right the defendants  have to prove continuous usage for 20 years as per Section 47 of the Indian  Easements Act, but the defendants purchased property only on 30.10.2002  under Ex.B.3, the suit is filed on 18.11.2002 within 18 days, hence, the  defendants cannot claim easement right also.   12. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff further argued that the  defendants mainly claim right from the lawyer’s family by way of Ex.B.4 stood  in the name of Janakiammal, who traced the title from Ex.B.5 sale deed stands  in the name of one Sesha Iyengar. The defendants have not pleaded these facts  in their written statement. In the absence of pleading, their stand cannot be  considered. The defendants mainly relied on Ex.B.1 judgment passed in  O.S.No.302 of 1976, which was also wholly relied on by the first Appellate  Court. That suit was between the defendants' vendor and an alleged 3rd party  tenant. In fact, the plaintiff or his predecessor in title is not a party to that case.  So, the judgment in O.S.No.302 of 1976 will not bind on the plaintiff. Hence,  Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 will not help the defendants. The first Appellate Court erred  in holding that the judgment would bind against the plaintiff. The plaintiff  claims rights over 300 x 300 feet ie. 90,000 sq.ft, whereas the defendants  agitate 3024 sq.ft. Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.3 relate to the same property. Ex.B.2  property is the southwest property and not the eastern property of the suit  property. The plaintiff proves possession of the entire suit property, which is  sufficient for granting a bare injunction. The commissioner’s report also shows  the coconut trees found in the suit property, which is the case of the plaintiff.13. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff further argued that the  trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidences and correctly decreed the  suit, whereas the first Appellate Court erred in reversing the finding of the trial  Court. So, the Second Appeal may be allowed. In support of his argument, the  learned counsel relied on the following citations:                  (1) 2020 (5) CTC 161 in the case of  Dr.N.Mohamed Farook /v/ R.Muruga Boobathy  decision of High Court of Madras                  (2) (2020) 7 MLJ 1 in the case of Janaki /v/  Raja Muthaiah and Another, decision of Madurai  Bench of Madras High Court.14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants has argued that the suit property is 90,000 sq.ft. (100 x 100 yard = 300 x 300 sq.feet) in S.No.818, the defendants claim 3024 sq.ft i.e., 18 x 168 feet. When the advocate/commissioner inspected the property, the plaintiff showed the  property of the defendants as suit property, the suit property was not shown to  him. This was specifically mentioned in the written statement. Both parties title deeds did not contain any survey number. The defendants purchased property measuring 3024 sq.ft. from the son of Janakiammal, who traced title  from Ex.B.5 sale deed, dated 31.10.1917, much earlier than the plaintiff's document Ex.A.3, dated 17.02.1926. Moreover, the defendants' vendor’s title  was upheld by the Court of law in O.S.No.302 of 1976, though the plaintiff is  not a party, the defendants’ vendor is a party to that suit, so it will bind on the  plaintiff while he made a rival claim. In a bare injunction suit, the defendant  pleaded title over the suit property from 1971, the plaintiff ought to have  amended the plaint by seeking a relief for declaration. It is settled position that  where a cloud is raised over the title of plaintiff’s property, a suit for  declaration and possession is the remedy, bare injunction is not a solution.15. The learned counsel for defendants further put forth argument that  plaintiff/principal executed power deed in favour of P.W.1 on 06.11.2002 and  filed suit on 18.11.2002 by making averment that the defendants attempted to  interfere his possession on 12.11.2002 and that when P.W.2 principal/plaintiff admitted in his evidence that he sold the suit property to P.W.1 then P.W.2 lost his personal interest in the property and also disentitle for relief of injunction. It is vehemently contended on the defendants' side that P.W.2/ principal of the  suit property, specifically admitted in his evidence that there is no interference  from the defendants. So, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be taken into  consideration as he has not deposed on behalf of his principal. Therefore, there  is no cause of action for the relief of an injunction. The first Appellate Court  has correctly declined the relief of bare injunction to the plaintiff by accepting  the case of the defendants, there is no need to interfere to that finding, hence,  the second appeal may be dismissed.16. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the defendants  has relied on the following rulings:                  (1) Judgment in S.A.(MD) No.217 of 2015  (Chithammal and 3 Ors. /v/ Gangadharan and Anr.)  passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on  11.02.2020.                  (2) (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 594 (Anathula  Sudharkar /v/ P.Buchi Reddy (died) by LRs.)                  (3) (2019) 17 Supreme Court Cases 692  (Jharkhand State Housing Board /v/ Didar Singh and  Anr.)

                   (4) (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 547 (Premji  Ratansey Shah and Others /v/ Union of India and  Others.)                  (5) (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 217 (Janki  Vashdeo Bhojwani /v/ Indusind Bank Ltd., and Ors.)                  (6) 2003 (1) CTC 478 (Tuticorin Diocesan Trust  Association /v/ Thavamanai and Others.)17. Now coming to the facts, the admitted position is that the suit  property is 90,000 sq.ft. (100 yard x 100 yard) with coconut trees in  S.F.No.818/A, Nerur South village, Karur Taluk, Karur. The suit has been filed  by one power of attorney P.Nagarajan, on behalf of his principal/plaintiff  Manickavasagam, seeking for bare permanent injunction. The plaintiff pleaded  that principal/plaintiff Manickavasagam is the owner of the suit property,  which was originally allotted to his grandfather R.Ramasamy Mudaliar under  Ex.A.2 partition deed, dated 09.07.1943. The plaintiff has also claimed title  from 1926 through Ex.A.3, the partition deed. It is the specific argument that  the plaintiff filed 100 years old registered document, Ex.A.3 and placed  reliance on the provision of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act.18. It is the definite case of the defendants that they purchased  3024 sq.ft., in the suit survey number from the legal heir of its original owner  Janakiammal by virtue of Ex.B.3, dated 30.10.2002 and traced title from  Ex.B.5, dated 31.10.1917. Ex.B.5 is an earlier document to Ex.A.3. Both documents are more than 100 years old. According to provision of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, the signature, handwriting, execution and attestation treated to be genuine when direct proof of documents is not possible. But the presumption applies only to the document’s genuineness, not  the truth of its contents. It should be decided based on evidence of each and every case.19. In this case, both the plaintiff and the defendants made rival claims  over the suit property. The suit is filed for bare injunction alone. If the defendant raises a genuine dispute about the enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property surrounded by boundaries therein, the plaintiff must seek or amend the plaint for declaration of his title. Once a person comes to the Court for discretionary relief of injunction, he must come to the Court with a definite  title over the property. It is well settled dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court  that when there is any cloud on the title of the property within the mentioned  four boundaries, a suit for bare injunction is not maintainable and they ought to  have sought for relief of declaration. The plaintiff makes claim on 90,000 sq.ft.  whereas the defendant claims 3024 sq.ft. So, without establishing the title, it  will not be possible to decide the possession. When both sides documents are  contradicting each other, the plaintiff must prove his title and possession over  the entire 90,000 sq.ft. A suit simplicitor for injunction will not be  maintainable when the title of the property of the plaintiff was disputed by the defendants. Much less when the boundaries of the suit property are disputed,  the suit filed by the plaintiff to protect his possession is not maintainable.20. The Hon’ble Supreme has settled the legal position in Anathula  Sudhakar case reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 594 and held in  paragraph No.21(c) as follows:

                   “21.(c).But a finding on title cannot be recorded  in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary  pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title  (either specific or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu  Thevar). Where the averments regarding title are  absent in a plaint and where there is no issue  relating to title, the court will not investigate or  examine or render a finding on a question of title, in  a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary  pleadings and issue, if the matter involves  complicated questions of fact and law relating to  title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy  by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title,  instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere  injunction.”                  From perusing records, there are no averments regarding the title and  there is no issue framed for title by the trial Court. Hence, the reliance placed  by the defendants' side on the Anathula Sudhakar case is squarely applicable to  the facts of this case. The citations relied on by the plaintiff are not applicable  to the facts of this case.21. It is pertinent to note here that the defendants pleaded that they have  been draining water for long time. This was also impliedly admitted by the  plaintiff's side during the course of argument on the issue of easementary right  by relying on Section 47 of the Indian Easements Act. The plaintiff is claiming  90,000 sq.ft. while the defendants produced the document for smaller extent,  which is abutting his property. The plaintiff must prove his title for entire  90,000 sq.ft., which could be decided only in the declaration suit. Therefore,  the first Appellate Court has rightly declined to grant relief in the suit in its  entirety.22. The next argument of the plaintiff is that the judgment of the suit in  O.S.No.302 of 1976 will not bind on him as he is not a party to that  proceeding. It is admitted that the defendant purchased property from one  Anand, son of one Janakiammal, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.302 of 1976.  The suit ended in favour of Janakiammal by the Court of law. This was not denied by the plaintiff. So, it will definitely bind the person who agitates her  title over that suit property until it is reversed. Hence, the first Appellate Court  was right in holding that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.302 of 1976 is  binding on the plaintiff.23. It is true that the advocate/commissioner inspected the property and  noted down the physical features of the same. The defendants pleaded in their  written statement that the plaintiff showed the property of the defendants  measuring 3024 sq.ft. alone as suit property. This was not specifically denied by the plaintiff by filing any reply statement. No acceptable reasons submitted  for this discrepancy. When a suit is filed for an extent of 90,000 sq.feet, why the plaintiff showed the small portion as suit property? When the suit property was not definite in nature and varied in extent, definitely, the plaintiff is not  entitled to the bare injunction relief.24. The trial Court has not considered all these aspects. The I Appellate  Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and held that the plaintiff has not  established his case for the relief of permanent injunction and hence, the first  Appellate Court rightly reversed the decree of the trial Court. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction for the suit  property in entirety in the absence of any finding regarding his title over the  property. The questions of law in the Second Appeal are answered against the appellant/plaintiff. Thus, this Second Appeal fails.25. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. 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, is confirmed. No costs. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to file a comprehensive suit for appropriate relief before appropriate forum, if so advised. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.