The main legal point established is that no injunction will lie against the true owner, and the court has the power to prevent abuse of process of court and stop vexatious proceedings.

Second defendant is the revision petitioner. He filed the revision to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.97 of 2012 filed by the first respondent herein for injunction.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2012 originally belonged to the third defendant/third respondent herein. The third defendant/third respondent herein agreed to sell the property to the revision petitioner, who is the second defendant in O.S.No.97 of 2012 and also executed the sale deed on 2.1.1993 after receiving consideration and did not turn up for registration. Therefore, the revision petitioner applied to the Registrar for compulsory registration and after enquiry, the sale deed was directed to be registered by order dated 1.12.1994. Thus, the revision petitioner became the owner of the property and he also filed the suit in O.S.No.522 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram against the third defendant herein and one T.Paramasivam, the father of the second respondent herein/first defendant in O.S.No.97 of 2012. The suit was for declaration of title of the revision petitioner herein and also for recovery of possession of the suit property from by the third defendant/third respondent herein and the father of the second respondent herein. That suit was decreed on 14.8.2000 and the father of the second respondent herein filed an appeal in A.S.No.101 of 2000 on the file of the District Court, Villupuram and the appeal was dismissed and the second appeal filed by the father of the second respondent herein in S.A.No.262 of 2002 was also dismissed on 16.4.2008. It is further submitted that the first respondent herein claims to have obtained a registered lease deed dated 25.9.2009 from the first defendant viz., the second respondent herein and under that lease deed, claimed to have been inducted into possession of the suit property by the second respondent herein and on that basis, the first respondent herein filed the suit for injunction and admittedly, the second respondent herein, who is the lessor of the first respondent/plaintiff had no title to the property and the second appeal was dismissed on 16.4.2008 and therefore, on the date of the alleged lease deed, the lessor viz, the second respondent herein had no title and therefore, the possession of the first respondent/plaintiff is unlawful and he can be termed only as a trespasser and the revision petitioner, being the original owner, is entitled to claim possession and the suit for injunction will not lie against the true owner and therefore, the suit is liable to be struck off. He also relied upon the following judgments:-

1. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD v. MASTER CRAFTS (2011(3) CTC 650)

2. M.NAGABHUSHANA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ((2011) 3 MLJ 982 (SC))

3. FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION v. YADU

4. TAMIL NADU HANDLOOM WEAVERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY v. S.R.EJAZ (2009(5) CTC 710)

5. LAKSHMI v. PRASANNA MANI ((2011) 7 MLJ 339)

6. SOUTHERN AND RAJAMANI TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED v. R.SRINIVASAN (2010(4) CTC 690)

7. MAHADEO SAVLARAM SHELKE v. THE PUNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

8. K.K.MODI v. K.N.MODI (AIR 1998 SC 1297)

9. SWAMINATHAN v. SRINIVASAGAM ((2003) 3 MLJ 566)

10. DINDIGUL PETTAI SATHANGUDI SHATRIYA NADAR URAVINMURAI v. SELVARAJ (2009(2) CTC 57).

3. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that under the registered lease deed dated 25.9.2009, the first respondent was inducted into possession of the property by the second respondent who is the first defendant in O.S.No.97 of 2012 and admittedly, the first defendant is the owner of the property and therefore, the possession of the first respondent cannot be termed to be unlawful and the first respondent cannot be characterized as a trespasser and even assuming that the revision petitioner has got a decree, he has to execute the same in the manner known to law and the possession of the first respondent cannot