The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prayer for declaration of title in property disputes and the need for producing clinching documents and genuine approved plans to prove title over the property.

1. These Second appeals are focussed by the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.123 of 1995 and 71 of 1997 and who is the defendant in O.S.No.93 of 1997, animadverting upon the common judgment and decrees dated 30.09.2005 passed in A.S.Nos.18 to 20 of 2004 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpet, confirming the common judgment and decrees of the District Munsif, Tambaram in O.S.Nos.71/97, 123/95 and 93/97. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these three Second Appeals would run thus:

(a) The following are the two suits filed by the appellant herein:

(i) O.S.No.123 of 1995 was filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its men, agents, servants, etc. from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property or in any manner trespassing or putting up any construction over the suit property; and

(b) For costs."

(ii) O.S.No.71 of 1997 was filed seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) For a mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to effect and give electricity service connection to the suit property;

(b) For costs."

(iii) One other suit O.S.No.93 of 1997 was filed by the respondent/defendant seeking the following reliefs:

"For permanent injunction, restraining the defendant his men, agent, servants or any one claiming through him from any manner, making any further construction in the suit 'A' and 'B' Schedule properties;

(b) For Mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to remove all the construction put up in suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and restore the property to its original position; and

(c) For costs."

(b) The written statements were filed by the respective defendants resisting the suits.

(c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues.

(d) During joint trial, the appellant herein examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 and A14 were marked. On the side of the respondents herein, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.

(e) Ultimately the trial Court rendered common judgment dismissing the suits filed by the appellant and decreeing the suit filed by the respondents, as against which the appellant herein filed first appeals for nothing but to be dismissed.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, these three Second Appeals have been filed suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN A.S.NO.18/2004

"1.Are the courts below are correct and justified

(a) in going into the question of title in a suit for bare injunction?

(b) in a suit for bare injunction, has the court got jurisdiction to go into the question of title and is not any decision rendered on the question of title improper and in excess of its jurisdiction?

2. Whether the State Government Order (Ex.B6) and the Circular (Ex.B7) can override the conditions stipulated under the Indian Electricity Act, for obtaining service connection in the light of the provisions of the Act?

3. Whether the Courts below are correct in coming to a conclusion that the Appellant/Defendant in O.S.No.93 of 1997 cannot claim any right under Ex.A1, since the said suit land is vest with the Municipality and it owes obligation to maintain the same, that too, in the absence of proof or material evidence for such tall claim of the ownership in favour of the Municipality? " (extracted as such)

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN A.S.NO.19/2004

"1.Are the courts below are correct and justified

(a) in going into the question of title in a suit for bare injunction?

(b) in a suit for bare injunction, has the court got jurisdiction to go into the question of title and is not any decision rendered on the question of title improper and in excess of its jurisdiction?

2. Whether the Respondent/Defendant [in O.S.No.123 of 1995] a Statutory Body, namely the Tambaram