A suit for bare injunction is not maintainable when the title is disputed, and the court may direct the parties to file a suit for declaration of rights over the property.

1. The defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff is the respondent. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction stating that the suit property was originally purchased by his father under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.1940 and after his death, he was in possession of the property and enjoying the same without any interruption and the appellant/defendant is the owner of the land adjacent to the suit property and he has no right over the suit property.The respondent/plaintiff enquired with the revenue officials and came to know that in the revenue records, the suit property is described as Madhakovil Promboke. Thereafter he applied to the Sub Collector, Namakkal for granting patta in respect of the suit property and the Sub Collector, Namakkal, after conducting enquiry, passed an order dated 03.04.1996 granting patta in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for the suit property. Thereafter, he also applied for cancellation of the entry of the suit property made in the revenue records as poromboke and the suit property in S.No.322/6 was subdivided as S.Nos.322/6A and 322/6B and the patta was issued in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in respect of S.No.322/6A by an order dated 24.05.1996. While so, the appellant/defendant attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property. Hence, the present suit.

2. The appellant/defendant contested the suit disputing the claim of the plaintiff over the suit property and he has stated that the suit property has been mentioned in the revenue records as Madhakovil Promboke and by suppressing the same, the respondent/plaintiff has got patta in respect of the suit property and the respondent/plaintiff has no title whatsoever to the suit property and even according to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff's father did not get full right over the suit property. The respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of injunction.

3. The trial Court partly decreed the suit holding that as per Ex.A1 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff's father, he purchased undivided half share over the suit property of an extent of 90' east , 75' west and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to get 45' east west and 37 ½' north south in S.No.322/6. The respondent/plaintiff is in possession of the property under document Ex.A1 and therefore the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to a decree for injunction in respect of property admeasuring 45' east west and 37 ½ ' north south in S.No.322/6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the the trial court, the respondent/plaintiffs as well as the appellant/defendant filed two appeals and the first appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff and granted decree in respect of the entire suit property and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant. Hence, these two second appeals.

4. Mr.S.Subbiah, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the Courts below without properly appreciating the evidence of Ex.A1 erred in granting injunction in respect of the entire suit property. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff purchased only undivided half share in S.No.322/6. He further submitted that the suit property was originally assessed as Madhakovil promboke in the revenue records and without giving notice to the appellant/defendant, the patta was issued in the name of the respondent/plaintiff by the Sub Collector and on the basis of the patta granted in his favour, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for injunction without being in possession. Therefore, the lower Appellate court erred in granting injunction in respect of the entire extent of the suit property having regard to the specific recital in Ex.A1 that the respondent/plaintiff purchased only undivided half share; the trial Court also erred in granting injunction in respect of half of the extent of property without specific boundary and therefore the judgments of the Courts below are