The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove legal possession in a suit for bare injunction and the limited evidentiary value of patta in determining ownership.

1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 06.03.2003 made in A.S.No.41 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 14.02.2001 made in O.S.No.1842 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiffs are sisters. The plaintiffs purchased the property on 29.02.1984 from one Egavalli under the registered sale deed. From the date of purchase, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by putting up house. Electricity service connection given to the house and the service connection number is 166:50:182 on 18.08.1989, property was assessed to tax, family card also issued. The defendants are northern boundary neighbours. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. They want to grab the property, they attempted to trespass into the suit property, which was prevented. Since they attempted interference in their possession, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for injunction.

3. Written statement filed by the defendants is as follows:-

The sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs by one Egavalli is no way connected with the properties possessed and enjoyed by the defendant. The said Egavalli is not a bonafide vendor to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. She never be in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs were not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The documents filed by them i.e. Electricity consumption card, family card, house tax are not related to the suit property. No cause of action for filing the suit. Plaintiffs are attempting to usurp the properties in their possession through unlawful means and ways and on the basis of a fraudulent sale deed executed by one Egavalli with hand-in gloves with the plaintiffs. The defendants are living within the boundaries of the house site plot No.12 assigned by the Revenue authorities in favour of the defendants. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement, have framed necessary issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence and decreed the suit. Against the decree and Judgment of trial Court, the defendant as the appellant preferred an appeal, which was allowed and setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court. Against the decree and Judgment passed by the first appellate Court, the present second appeal has been preferred by the 2nd plaintiff as the appellant.

5. At the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was framed for consideration:

"Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiffs are not entitled to have the injunction against the defendants in substantial in law?"

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd plaintiff would submit that she filed a suit for bare injunction on the basis of the sale deed, Ex.A1, under which, she purchased 1044 sq.ft. of vacant site along with her sister. She constructed a house and applied electricity connection, which was evidenced by Exs.A2 and A3. The special notices and house tax receipts were filed, which was evidenced by Exs.A4 to A8 and Exs.A12 to A14. The family card was also issued, which was marked as Ex.A9. One Egavalli is the predecessor in title and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. One Subramani, was examined as P.W.2, who is the husband of Egavalli. He was also produced Ex.A17-medical certificate, which shows that Egavalli was suffering from paralytic attack and she is unable to speak. The trial Court has considered all these aspects in proper and perspective and came to the correct conclusion that the appellant/2nd plaintiff herein is entitled a decree for bare injunction. But the first appellate Court only on the basis of Ex.B1-patta issued in the nam