The court emphasized the need for filing a comprehensive suit claiming appropriate relief in property disputes, rather than addressing title disputes in a suit for bare injunction.

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.01.1999 in A.S.No.141 of 1998 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam.

2. The First Appellate Court while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.141 of 1998 on 28.01.1999 has inter alia observed that ...the Defendant/Respondent is not now in joint possession of the suit properties. However, after he acquires right upon the said properties as stated supra, the presumption is that he is also a co-owner. But, the contention on behalf of the Appellant is that the Respondent/Defendant being an alienee from Seeniammal, another Co-owner is not entitled to joint possession with the Appellant upon the said properties and that the Appellant is entitled to seek injunction against him. But, it is not a case between a Coparcenar and a stranger alienee from coparcenar. Therefore, the said contention on behalf of the Appellant is not accepted. Therefore, it is held that the Plaintiff/Appellant is not entitled to injunction as against the Respondent/Defendant with regard to Door No.2/39 and the property in Survey No.67/6. Also, the trial Court has further observed that the Defendant/Respondent derived right upon the Survey No.67/10. Therefore, with regard to the said property, the Appellant/Plaintiff is not entitled to seek injunction against the Respondent. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court with regard to the suit house, the property in Survey No.67/6 and the property in S.No.67/10 cannot be said as incorrect and accordingly held for point No.1 that the portion of the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court dismissing the Plaintiff/Appellants claim with regard to the suit house in Door No.2/39, the property in S.No.67/6 and the property in S.No.67/10 is correct and resultantly, confirmed the portion of the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court dismissing the Plaintiff/Appellants claim in regard to the same and consequently, allowed the Appeal in part without costs.

3. Before the trial Court in the main suit, two issues have been framed for trial. On behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff, Witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.A1 to A40 have been marked. On the side of the Respondent/Defendant, Witnesses D.Ws.1 to 3 have been examined and Exs.B1 to B9 have been marked.

4. The trial Court on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has consequently dismissed the suit in respect of the first item in S.No.67/6, the suit house bearing Door No.2/39 and in respect of the second item viz., the S.No.67/10 with costs but in respect of the suit first item in S.No.67/7 cents and in respect of the third item of the suit property bearing S.No.67/5, 10 cents, it had decreed the suit as prayed for.

5. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree dated 21.08.1999 in respect of A.S.141/1998 passed by the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, the Appellant/Plaintiff as an aggrieved person has preferred the Second Appeal before this Court.

6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:

i) Whether the Judgment of the Learned Subordinate Judge is vitiated in holding that the Defendant has acquired title as co-owner under Ex.B4 Settlement Deed dated 15.11.1996 without giving a finding on the validity of Ex.B4 Settlement Deed?

ii) When the Plaintiff is admittedly in possession of the suit house and living there with her family, is she not entitled to a decree for injunction against the Defendant?

iii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in law in holding that no injunction could be granted against the Defendant since is a co-owner overlooking the fact that the Defendant claiming to be a Settlee from one of the coowners cannot interfere with the admitted possession of the Plaintiff?"

CONTENTIONS, DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS ON SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION Nos. 1 TO 3:

7. According to the Learned counse