the Plaintiff on the basis of the sale deed from the Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.1 although has not contested the suit, his brother, the Defendant No.2, contested the suit. He has gone to deny those averments and plead all those facts impeaching the said registered deed which the Plaintiff projects to be his triumph card. The Trial court has framed issues on all those scores, which are issue nos.8, 9 to 10 and then it has gone to investigate and examine the evidence let in by the parties in finally rendering a finding on the question of title. In taking up that exercise, it being duty bound has, however, not found that the matter does not involve complicated question of fact and law relating to title. The Trial Court has also not so expressed in finding the matter to be simple. It has straightway decided the issue regarding title even in the suit for injunction in ultimately taking a view that the Plaintiff having acquired title and possession; he is entitled to a decree for injunction as prayed for. When the Defendant No.2 has raised the issue of insanity of the Defendant No.1; the same has not been enquired into but merely for his absence, he being set ex parte, the suit has been decided. In so far as the vital aspect of possession of the suit land is concerned; the Trial Court has also not separately undertaken the discussion of evidence as to possession and has not recorded the answer that the Plaintiff is in possession of the property as on the suit in overruling the possibility that the Plaintiff’s move in filing this suit for permanent injunction is in the garb of a suit for recovery of possession and avoid the declaration of title where he may face the risk in approaching the Court in a shortcut manner. Thus, this Court finds that the Trial Court has not used its discretion carefully in identifying the case to be an exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for
