Order of injunction cannot be passed merely on vague allegations.

JUDGMENT :- First plaintiff and the legal representatives of the second and third plaintiff are the appellants.

2. The suit is for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows :-

The plaintiffs have been in occupation of the suit property for the past 30 years. Originally one Muniyammal was the Chief tenant of the suit property, the second plaintiff as sub-tenant was paying rents to her. Thereafter one Munisamy was receiving the rents from them. Subsequently, the landlord of the property one Kurshid Jahankan Baktcha leased out the property to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit property as tenants. The said Kurshid Jahankan Baktcha died leaving behind his son Mir Sulthan Mohideen as his legal heir. The plaintiffs have executed separate lease deeds in favour of the said Mir Sulthan Mohideen and the suit property is the vacant site over which they have raised the present superstructures. The defendant, without any right whatsoever, attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and she also filed a false complaint at Othiyansalai Police Station in February 1982 against the plaintiffs alleging that the plaintiffs were not entitled to continue their possession. On 12-8-1982, the defendant again disturbed them and they have issued a lawyer's notice to her. The defendant has issued a reply notice disputing their claim, hence, the present suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement contending as follows :-

The suit property was neither taken on lease by Muniammal at any point of time nor the plaintiffs were paying rents to her. No separate lease deeds were entered into between the plaintiffs and their alleged landlord; that the defendant has never caused any disturbance as alleged. Originally, the defendant's father Munisamy took the suit site on lease from one Kurshid Jahankan Basha for monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The said Munisamy built the present superstructure and leased out the same to the plaintiffs and other tenants. After the death of Munisamy, the lease hold right devolved on the defendant and her sister Matchangandhi. The original lease between the plaintiffs' father and the landlord Mir Sulthan Mohideen has not been terminated. The defendant has only demanded rent from the plaintiffs for the month of August 1991. The lease agreement between Mir Sulthan Mohideen and this defendant is subsisting as such no valid agreement could be entered into as alleged between the plaintiff and Mir Sulthan. The defendant is also taking steps to evict the plaintiffs on the ground of wilful default and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the Trial Court, the third plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs. A1 to A8. Ex. A1 dated 5-10-1971 rental agreement entered into between Muniammal and the third plaintiff in respect ofv a bunk shop which belonged to Muniammal, for a period of one year the rent being Rs. 1.25 per day. Ex. A2 is the lease deed executed by A. B. Hassan the first plaintiff in favour of Munusamy in respect of the land where the bunk shop is located, for a period of one year the rent being Rs. 1.50 per day. Ex. A3 dated 23-12-1981 is the lease deed executed by Mir Sulthan Mohideen in favour of the third plaintiff. Ex. A4 series are rental receipts commencing from 15-11-1982 issued by Mir Sulthan Mohideen in favour of the second plaintiff. Ex. A5 dated 15-11-1982 is the electricity bill issued in the name of the second plaintiff. Ex. A6 dated 25-2-1982 is the advocate's notice issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant. Ex. A7 dated 26-4-1982 is the reply notice issued by the defendant's advocate to the plaintiffs' advocate. Ex. A8 dated 28-2-1983 is the acknowledgment issued by the Pondicherry Municipality for receipt of licence fee from the third plaintiff.

5. The defendant has examined herself as DW1, DW2 Lakshmi, DW3 Venu and DW4 Pascal and marked Exs. B1 to B6. Ex. B1 is the note book indicating receipt of rent from Munusamy, father of