In cases involving serious title disputes, a mere injunction suit should be dismissed if the plaintiff has not prayed for a declaration of title. Specific denial in the written statement is crucial, and the legal principles governing the second appeal must be considered.

1. This Second appeal is focused by the plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2012 passed in A.S.No.23 of 2011 by the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.177 of 2009.

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

3. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The appellant, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit for permanent injunction seeking the following reliefs, describing the schedule of property as under:

"(i) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property for ever; and

(ii) For costs." (extracted as such)

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

Tiruvannamalai R.D., Sub-D-I, Tiruvannamalai Taluk,At Vellanandal Village

01. New S.No.51/6 (old S.No.37/8) 0.02.0 hectare including a well and the oil engine fitted in the well." on the main ground that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff exclusively.

(b) The suit property is situated in S.No.37/8 and this property along with other properties originally belonged to one Iyangar Gounder, who died six decades ago leaving behind his five sons namely (1) Sevi Gounder, (2) Narayana Gounder, (3) Manicka Gounder, (4) Duraisamy Gounder and (5) Arjunan Gounder, and they were in possession and enjoyment of those properties as co-owners. They orally partitioned the properties into five shares five decades ago. In the said oral partition, the shares in S.No.37/8 were allotted as under:

1. Sevi Gounder 19 cents

2. Narayana Gounder 19 cents

3. Manicka Gounder 12-1/2 cents

4. Duraisamy Gounder 13 cents

5. Arjunan Gounder 16-1/2 cents;

and all those five sharers were allotted 1/5th share each in the well in S.No.37/8. The plaintiff being the son of the said Narayana Gounder, purchased the remaining four shares from the other co-sharers and deepened the well by spending huge amount. However, subsequently the defendants started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(c) Per contra, written statement was filed by the first defendant and the same was adopted by his sons/D2 and D3. A thumb-nail sketch of the same would run thus:

There was no oral partition as alleged in the plaint. However, there was oral partition between the brothers namely Iyangar Gounder and Rama Gounder. Iyanger Gounder was allotted 80 cents in S.No.37/8 and only half right in the well in S.No.37/8. After the death of Iyangar Gounder, each of his sons were entitled to 1/10th share in the well and not 1/5th share in the well. Rama Gounder died leaving behind his three sons, namely

(1) Vellaiya Gounder (2) Ayyasamy Gounder and (3) Ponnusamy Gounder and as such, they were irrigating their lands in S.No.37/2 and 37/7 by making use of their right over the half share in the said well. There was a court auction at the instance of the said Ponnusamy Gounder and in that the suit property was not mentioned as the one included in the property brought for sale. Samikannu Gounder happened to be the purchaser in the court auction sale and there is no specification about his right over the well situated in S.No.37/8. Subsequently, Samikannu Gounder sold the property to Ponnusamy Gounder. D1 is the son of Ponnusamy Gounder and D2 and D3 are the sons of D1.

(d) There are other details also found set out in the written statement highlighting that there was a serious title dispute over the suit property.

(e) The trial Court framed the relevant issues.

(f) Up went the trial, during which the plaintiff/Raman examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked; and the first defendant/Sivalingam examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2/Elumalai and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

4. Ultimately the tria