The absence of a prayer for declaration of title or partition in a suit for permanent injunction renders the suit bad, and only status-quo can be ordered. Parties must file a partition suit for adjudication and division of their rights.

1. This second appeal is focussed by the defendant in the suit as against the judgement and decree dated 5.11.2004 passed by the Sub Judge, Thiruppathur, in A.S.No.28 of 2004 allowing the appeal against the judgement and decree dated 30.4.2004 passed by the Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, in O.S.No.40 of 2003, which was one for permanent injunction.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these appeals, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus:

(i) The respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.40 of 2003 seeking the following reliefs:

"to pass a judgement and decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant;

a. restraining the defendant and his agents from interfering with my peaceful possession and enjoyment in the suit property by way of permanent injunction;

b. directing the defendant to pay the cost of the suit to the plaintiff." (extracted as such)

on the main ground that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the property described in the schedule of the plaint on the strength of the registered Will-Ex.A2, executed by his father-Ramasamy in his favour on 27.4.1998. The said Ramasamy died on 17.4.2000.

(ii) Even though the defendant is also having a share in a portion of the entire house, the suit is only for the remaining portion as found described in the schedule of the plaint. In view of the defendant trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiff, the suit was filed.

(iii) Per contra, denying and refuting the allegations/averments in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement resisting the suit, by contending that the father-Ramasamy executed a registered Will-Ex.B1 dated 13.7.1998 in his favour in respect of the same suit property.

(iv) Issues were framed. During enquiry, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 to D.W.5 and marked Exs.B1 to B7.

(v) Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which, the plaintiff preferred the appeal; whereupon, the first appellate Court reversed the judgement and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit granting injunction, however with the observation that the defendant was at liberty to file a suit to assert his title, if any.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgement and decree of the first appellate Court, the defendant preferred this second appeal on various grounds.

5. My learned predecessor framed the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the Court below right in holding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property in his individual capacity without any title when plaintiff himself claimed possession on the basis of will which is found against him." (extracted as such)

6. On hearing both sides, to their knowledge, I have formulated the following additional substantial questions of law also.

(i) Whether the suit was bad for want of a prayer for declaration of title or for partition, based on documents of title or Ex.A2-the Will?

(ii) In the wake of the answer given by P.W.1 that there was no oral partition and also however in view of the averment in the written statement by the defendant that for 'the purpose of convenient enjoyment of the respective shares, the rival parties started enjoying certain portions in the house separately', whether the appellate Court was justified in granting injunction?

(iii) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgement passed by the lower Court?.

7. Heard both sides.

8. All these substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion as they are interwoven and interlinked, interconnected and entwined with one another.

9. At the outset itself, I would like to fumigate m