JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. The appellant is the 6 th defendant in O.S No.179/2005 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. The suit was instituted seeking a decree of injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and from interfering with the construction of a compound wall along with northern boundary as an extension of the existing wall. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- 2.1 The plaint schedule property belong to the plaintiffs and their elder brother, Aboobacker. The property is actual in possession of the 2 nd plainti Alleging obstruction by defendants 1 to 3 to the construction of a compound wall by the 2 nd plainti Northern boundary, O.S No.102/2000 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. The said suit culminated in judgment and decree pursuant to which E.P No.28/2004 was filed for execution. 2.2 The defendants entered appearance and resisted the suit contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs have no title over the plaint schedule property and that the predecessor in-interest of the plaintiffs had not acquired the extent of property has now scheduled in the plaint. According to the defendants, the assignor Kunjeen Kutty, did not posess any property in Re-Survey No.146/5 under the partition deed through which he allegedly derived the property. It was further contended that the property allotted to them measured only 25×32, 6 feet kole, whereas the plaint schedule property measured 55×59 and therefore, they could not have conveyed an extent larger than what they themselves possessed. An Advocate Commission was taken out for identification of the plaint schedule property. The Advocate Commissioner after measurement filed Ext.C1 report and Ext.C1(a) plan and reported that there is a clear boundary on the North of the rest of the property and that further the Advocate Commissioner found that the boundary wall built with laterate stone in two rows, as claimed by the plaintiffs who have been put up in due execution of the judgment and decree in O.S No.102/2000. However, when it came to the measurement, the Advocate Commissioner reported that the property is having a measurement of 55.5×29.8, 6 feet kole. This discrepancy in the measurement was one of the reason why the trial court non-suited the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs have not proved the possession. However, when it came to the measurement, the Advocate Commissioner reported that the property is having a measurement of 55.5×29.8, 6 feet kole. This discrepancy in the measurement was one of the reason why the trial court non-suited the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs have not proved the possession. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal and then the Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence found that one of the contentions raised by the appellant / the 6 th defendant is that the plainti have a property in Re-Survey No.146/5, whereas, even going by the defendants' case, they have title only in respect of the properties covered under Re-Survey No.146/1 and 146/4. Moreover, the First Appellate Court also found that going by the statement in the written statement, the derivation of title of the defendants is traced through certain documents prior to 1956, and that since the documents were not produced before the court, the contention of the defendants is unsustainable and therefore proceeded to reverse the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for and hence the present appeal. 3. On 03.06.2024, this Court admitted the appeal and framed the following substantial questions of law:- a. Did the first appellate court err in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in the case, resulting in a wrong decree? b. Did the court err in appreciating the principle of burden of proof? 4. Heard Shri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and T.Sivadasan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16 and 22. 5. Shri.Mohammed Iquabal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant primarily contended that since the title of the plaintiffs was disputed by the defendants, the First Appellate Court ought to have held that since the plaintiffs have not sought for a declaratory relief, the relief for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable. In support of his contention relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LR's and others [ AIR 2008 SC 2033 ]. He further pointed out that in a suit for injunction, it is the obligation of the plaintiff to prove the possession. In support of his contention relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another [2009 0 AIR (SC) 1103]. He further pointed out that in a suit for injunction, it is the obligation of the plaintiff to prove the possession. In support of his contention relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and Another [2009 0 AIR (SC) 1103]. Lastly it is pointed out that if the defendant dispute the title, the suit should fail for want of any declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiffs. Reliance is placed to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krushna Chandra Behera and Others v. Narayan Nayak and Others [ 2025 1 Supreme 646 ]. 6. Per contra, Shri.T.Sivadasan, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16 and 22, supported the findings of the First Appellate Court and contended that in fact even going by the admitted case of the defendants, the defendants do not have any property in Survey No.146/5 and that their title is in respect of property in Sub-Division No.1 and 4 in Re-Survey No.146. It is further pointed out that in execution of judgment and decree in O.S No.102/2000, E.P. No.28/2004 was filed and the decree stood executed and the boundary up to the Northern wall was constructed. The presence of a well defined boundary till the Northern boundary is clearly debited by the Advocate Commissioner. Beyond the Northern boundary, the presence of the well defined boundary is also found by the Advocate Commissioner. If as a matter of fact the defendants have a case that the property covered by Survey No.146/5 belongs to them, it was incumbent upon them to have established the said fact. Further, it is pointed out that none of the defendants mounted the box and that the brother, one of the co-owners of the property, who is not a part to the suit tendered evidence as DW1. He further pointed out that by mere denial of the title of the plaintiffs, it cannot be said that there is a cloud in the title of the plaintiffs. If that be so, there is no requirement for the plaintiffs to seek the declaratory relief. 7. In reply Shri.Mohammed Iquabal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the plaint is bereft of any details as now found by the First Appellate Court and therefore with the infirmity, the First Appellate Court could not have decreed the suit. 8. 7. In reply Shri.Mohammed Iquabal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the plaint is bereft of any details as now found by the First Appellate Court and therefore with the infirmity, the First Appellate Court could not have decreed the suit. 8. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar, perused the judgments of the courts below and records of the case. 9. In the nature of the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether the appreciation of evidence done by the First Appellate Court is perverse, so as to warrant interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This is more so when, apart from the appreciation of evidence by the courts below no other substantial question of law has been framed by this Court nor it appears to this Court that there exist any other substantial question of law apart from the one which has been framed by this Court in order dated 03.06.2024. 10. In the above backdrop, this Court proceeds to consider the respective contentions of the parties. What is contented before this Court by the appellant is that there is a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs and therefore the remedy of the plaintiffs is not a suit for injunction simplicitor. It is true that in a case where there is a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs, a suit for injunction simplicitor is not the remedy. But at the same time, it must be remember that it is not in all cases that a simple denial of the title of the plaintiffs, creates a cloud on the title of the plaintiffs, warranting the necessity to seek for a declaratory relief. The contention of the appellant must be judged in the above context. 11. What is now contended before this Court that the appellant's predecessor did not have a title over the property covered by Re-Survey No.146/5. In order to appreciate the said contention, it is incumbent upon this Court to refer to the contentions in the written statement and the document of the title by which the plaintiffs traces their title to their property. Exts.B2 and B4 are the two documents by which the defendants trace title to their property. In order to appreciate the said contention, it is incumbent upon this Court to refer to the contentions in the written statement and the document of the title by which the plaintiffs traces their title to their property. Exts.B2 and B4 are the two documents by which the defendants trace title to their property. On a perusal of these documents, it is seen that the properties are situated in Re-Survey Nos.146/1 and 146/4. There is no explanation forthcoming from the appellant as to how and in what manner the appellant traces her title to Re-Survey No.146/5. That be so, it is inevitable for this Court to hold that the denial of the plaintiff’s title appears to be a motivated contention intended solely to create an impression that there exists a cloud over the plaintiffs’ title. 12. Moreover, the perusal of Ext.A3 decree in O.S No.102/2000 shows that the decree was sought against defendants therein for a decree of injunction restraining constructing any compound wall in the Northern boundary of the plaint A schedule property. In that case, defendants 1 to 4 were restrained from obstructing the right of the plaintiffs to construct a compound wall upto the Northern boundary. The property covered in survey No.146/5 was the subject matter of that suit. Defendants 1 to 3 herein are defendants 1 to 3 therein. Therefore, it is clear that as regards defendants 1 to 3, they cannot dispute the title as well as the possession of the plaintiffs, especially since the Advocate Commissioner has found that in pursuance to Ext.A3 decree, the compound wall upto the northern boundary has been constructed. It is only when the obstruction came from the defendants other than defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the present suit. 13. That apart, the appreciation of the evidence by the First Appellate Court clearly shows that the First Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who had specifically found that there is clear boundary on the North of the rest of the property. It is true that the First Appellate Court has discarded the minor discrepancy in the extend of property on measurement. It is true that the First Appellate Court has discarded the minor discrepancy in the extend of property on measurement. But then, the discrepancy in the extent of the property on the measurement is not fatal to the present case, especially since the defendants have not been able to show that by virtue of Exts.B2 and B4 documents, they have a title over the property covered by Sub-Division 5 of Re-Survey No.146. Therefore, the finding of the First Appellate Court that the denial of the title of the plaintiffs by the defendants appears to be motivated, cannot be faulted Moreover, as against the First Appellate decree, only the 6 th defendant has come up with the present appeal. The reasoning given by the appellant is that the other defendants are residing abroad and therefore are not in a position to file this appeal. 14. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, that would lead to an incongruous situation where the decree as against the 6 th defendant alone will have to be interfered with, whereas the decree as against the other defendants will become final in the absence of any appeal by them. Though legally it may be permissible for the appellant to sustain this appeal independently, this Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that only the 6 th defendant is questioning the title of the plaintiffs and that the 6th defendant claims co- ownership right with the other defendants over the properties, which the plaintiffs claim that they are in possession of. Therefore, the aforesaid incongruity must also be borne in mind while this Court considers this appeal. 15. Now coming back to the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, as aforesaid, since the only question that this Court deemed it fit to frame was as regards the appreciation of evidence by the First Appellate Court, and that on going through the findings of the First Appellate Court, it does not appear to this Court that the findings rendered by the First Appellate Court are vitiated by any perversity, it is inevitable for this Court to hold that the judgment rendered by the First Appellate Court does not require any interference in exercise of its powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This is more so when, none of the defendants mounted the box and the third party, who claims to be the co-owner of the property was examined as DW1 and who had in his chief-examination deposed contrary to the pleadings of the original defendants in the written statement. 16. Resultantly, this Court finds that the appreciation of the evidence by the First Appellate Court is not perverse warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. Therefore, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.