7.In addition, regarding the relief of injunction, when there is doubt over the title and admittedly the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, the lower appellate Court has rejected the evidence of D.W.3 an independent witness deposed in support of the defendants regarding their continuous possession enjoyment of the suit property for more than 15 years. The reason attributed by the lower appellate Court from the rejection is that, in 1994 the age of D.W.3 when he deposed was 35 years. The suit was filed in the year 1981. So at the time of filing the suit, the age of D.W.3 could be only 22 years. Therefore he cannot be a competent person to say that the defendants have perfects title by adverse possession. This court fails to see any logic in the above finding. D.W.3 has only deposed about his knowledge of defendants possession for the past fifteen years. The inferential fact from this evidence is not whether the defendant has perfected the title by adverse possession. It is whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction against the defendants when the evidence clearly show that defendants are already in possession of the suit property on the date of filing the suit and whether without a plea for recovery of possession relief of injunction can be granted. More so when the defendants have been granted patta for the land. When the plaintiff has failed to prove his title in the manner known to law, when the land admitted by a Grama Natham and patta issued in favour of the defendants and when the defendants have proved to be in possession of the property, the findings of the lower appellate Court over looking all the admissible evidence but relying upon the facts not proved in accordance to the law of evidence bristles with illegality hence liable to be set aside, accordingly second appeal is allowed.
