(&pinat t.he decree and judgment of -tlle ·oeu;n o;C the ......... J1w ~ - ··-~: .. -._.· - . Palet)lat in A.S.No.126 of 1978 ••• 1a,.,..10-19ft (O.I.Bo.114 of 1972 Coun o£ tile Jlunsiff d Alathur cn.,O.,-J-1978). •• l ••·•• II ru BIGJI eomrr o• l:D&Ll a 1111.AIUI,l,M PNeemt fhe Ifollovable b.Just.ioe Ya-rgaeae KaJltata Weirule&q, the 6th February• 1985/ 17th Jiasba, 1906• s...« Appeal h• 2 ot 1980 residi.ng at Karunalayem, Perayanode • Obitt.ar l'ill.age. Cld.\-\ur ~al.wt.. Pal.pa, Dis-trtot.. By Ave.l/s. l.#.@oviuds err4gar 8ebast i.an Davia -. H,Sivaraill!Ul & L--.•• 1. Krishnan, s/e Ghathukutty, 2heirpuram, Thekkerthara. WVillage, 4lat&hr Talk., 2. Bakkandi, S/o Ghathukatty» aged 48 years, de, do, 3. Vel.ayudb.aa• S/o Oba'11Wtllt\y • 4e. a. Ry Advs. M/s. P.N.Krishnanlutty Mohan, I.Vijayan, lf ••Suguna.palan &: P.N .BaveeDiran. USJ:ONDD! - Beapadfmt - P).aint.it:C. Yeaeda Aa-. aliaa Thank.Ask, D/o '"•• ?Ju.a Secoa4 Appeal having be8ll tiaall.y heard oil 31-1-1985, the ooun en 6-2-1985 deliYent ~ tel.low1D&a- A.J;PELLAlllS - Ap,Pellut;s - k"'e&1.-a. t• ,~a- ' - - -- Ju.dgm.m'i this is an appeal by tne de.fendan'\s. Pl*Uf:t filed a ~ e1.1it for perpewal injunction to restrain tll.e i&feDdan.te from tres_.>assil,g iato \Ile plaint eo!ledllle pm p4r'Q". Defendants contended that they are in possessi on at the pro.erv and * t t.b87 are the oalii~aii11& t eaaat.,jo:t the property, The trial court ini'iiaJ.11 cU.•1ssed ue soi"• The glaintiff 11.led aa ~ ~-••1• A.S.Bo.3 of 1976. !he t'.\J pella'\e cou.r'\ remanded the oaae :tor b'eah disposal vi~ a direotioa to refer the questioa ot 'ien&i cy to the coneerrted Laad ~ibllnal. After remand, 'Ule trill court referred tb.e •"tar '\o the Land bibuaal for 'Mla deeiaioa on the ql.lestion. of \enanoy. !be l.aJld trillunal. rew.raal properi.1. Sim• tne direction of 1l'te appell.au OOIU''i was io ded.de the suit on tne findiD& regarding emmey, the trial oou.ri deoreed the suite t i .. 2 - 2, the defendants filed an eeal before the District Court, Palgbat. the ap vellate oo urt oonsidered the qaestil of possession also independently in te sense tat the 9t) pellate court did not, rel3 solely on the finding recorded by the tribunal to deaide 1.he question of possession. it also fl\) preeiated th.e evidence adduced by tl1e wlaintiff. After &iJt1reoiating the evidence, the appellate oo ur'\ held that the plaintiff has proved possession of the proper'ty on- the date of snit. After recording Sl ch a .finding, the apiJellate court confirmed the judgmen't and decree of \he trial oo urt. low the defendants 8t-' .Peal to '\his court. , Counsel for the appellants subits that in a suit for in.Junction, Vie question regarding 'title is not of much Kea bes.- iaponanee as held by this court iD. l!@aya ..Bb.at v. S1.1brya I"'\ Bha$ (1979 K.L.T. 766 F. .B.)' It is true trat the question of tJ.1.le is noi a matter always 1i<> be d eoided in a suit for inju.nation. .But, in_ tnis cas_e, th.e '\_rial a> ur'\ cannot. be accµsed of consitl ering the question of title sim e the pellate court directed the trial court; in 1'is rem.and order to consider tat question, The trial court is t ' Ar ' 'I I' r- 1 I 'l !f fi f j In a suit for injunction tlle d efendan.ta can ree\ coatend that the 'plaintiff is not in ossession of the paoert lie can also con\end if he so ohooaee. that he i8 iA · possessl.on of the roertj ursuant to a particular title, He ca very well say tn.at he ia a tenant of \he plaiati.ff ~ and tnat he is in posaesa1on of the pa 9erty. When once the d efendant contends that he ia iJl posseosion of 'the t-'ro.:,..ert.Y oy vir\ue o:f his ten.ency, I aa otfopiru• t!iat t in such a oase if 'ihe court-co.usiders the ques'\ion of rt t-- ~ teru,.nc,.r alw :for the urate of determining the crucial JJ ,iuestion of .Possession, it cannot oe lli said taat what Yie t court does is wron;;, In lib.is case, the ·trial court vaa (-.. "'472= comm.i tted an error. As .atkted earlier, the ellate court 1as aw con sidered u e ,destion of possession independently, Mow, bo'th the courts tl?Ve,:found tha'\ the plaintiff' ia entitled to a d eoree for Jnjunction. The counsel subai 1ted that I should :rem.and t:1.rH.:aae for afresh oouidera'tiea bJ" It see no aerit in tnae a,peel, • • u 2 es o os ts - sd[- Vela, ktg. - )d¢ tne trial oo urt, Tnis isas simple suit for iaju.m-tion wbieh accede @&, I think I cannot(stx to the request of' tne couns is d isuissed, lo l k Frog (9- was irutituied in