The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for injunction is not tenable without a prayer for declaration of title when there is a title dispute, and no injunction would lie against a co-owner of the property. Additionally, the burden of proof for exclusive possession in a suit for injunction lies on the plaintiffs.

This appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2004 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram in A.S.No.42 of 2004, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Chidambaram in O.S.No.56 of 1995 dated 09.07.2003.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following reliefs in respect of the suit property which run thus:

"(a) To pass a decree for permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property; and

(b) For costs."

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

Chidambaram Town Jagajanandha Street(Arani Amman Koil Street) Ward No.1 Block No.4, T.S.No.79/2 Extent 0.2220 sq.feet with a thatched house bearing Door No.19-A with boundaries:

To the North of T.S.No.79/3 belonging to Kalyani;

To the west of Kannirama Pillai Street,

To the east of Arunachalam's house; To the south of T.S.No.79/1 belonging to Kalyani Ammal."

(extracted as such)

4. A summation and summarisation of the averments in the plaint would run thus:

One Packiri Vathiar happenned to be the original owner of the suit property who had two wives, namely the first plaintiff and D1. The second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff and D2 to D5 are the sons of D1. During trial it transpired that there is also one other daughter for D1 born to same Packiri Vathiar. Since there was no understanding relating to sharing of six items of properties which originally belonged to the deceased Packiri Vathiar, at the instance of the same plaintiffs herein, a partition suit in O.S was filed, wherein, preliminary decree was passed virtually on consent, allotting shares in favour of the contesting parties. Subsequently, no final decree application was filed and no final decree proceedings also commenced. The parties entered into a compromise before Panchayatars and accordingly, the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs herein and the other items were amicably settled. While so, the plaintiffs had put up a thatched shed and started enjoying it ever since 1985 and they also acquired prescriptive title over it. While so, some time before the filing of the present suit, the defendants started disputing the title of the plaintiffs and started disturbing their possession, which necessitated the plaintiffs to file the suit.

5. Challenging and refuting, impugning and gainsaying the averments/allegations in the plaint, the defendants filed the written statement, the nitty-gritty of it would run thus:

The suit property was not allotted to the share of the plaintiffs in the panchayat. There were some arrangement, as per which, in the house property, the plaintiffs herein agreed to surrender their shares in consideration of receiving cash equal to that of their shares. However, the suit property was not agreed to be parted with, in whole in favour of the plaintiffs. In fact, as per the preliminary decree if the shares are calculated and assessed, it is quite obvious that the suit property would be disproportionately higher than the shares of the plaintiffs herein and for such arrangement, the defendants did not agree. In the panchayat it was not agreed by the defendants to part with the suit property as claimed by the plaintiffs. In the brick built house, as per the preliminary decree, the plaintiffs and the defendants are entitled to shares. However, in the same preliminary decree, it was contemplated, that in view of the share of the plaintiffs herein, the defendants should pay compensation/owelty. However, such compensation/owelty was not paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs, but in some other item of the joint property, excess share was given