The principle that one co-owner cannot get injunction as against another co-owner applies to third party purchasers as well, and the only remedy available for a third party purchaser in a property dispute is to file a suit for partition.

1. This Second appeal is focused by the first defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2007 passed in A.S.No.46 of 2006 by the Subordinate Judge at Tiruppur, reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur in O.S.No.256 of 2003.

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:

At the entertaining stage itself the appellant was heard and the judgment is being pronounced.

Pithily and precisely the averments in the plaint would run thus:

(a) The property originally belonged to one Malayappa Gounder, the plaintiff and Thirumurthy, D7. While so, D7 and D1 colluded together and Ex.B1, the sale deed dated 10.11.2003 emerged in favour of D-1 at the instance of D7. D2 to D6 are aiding D1 for trespassing into the suit property

(b) Per contra, D1 filed the written statement resisting the suit on the main ground that the suit was bad for want of a prayer for declaration of title to the suit property. D1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and it is wrong to describe her as though she was attempting to trespass into the suit property. D1, being a co-sharer of the suit property, is in possession and enjoyment of a specific share in it, so to say, half share, as originally the property belonged to the plaintiff and D7, who sold his half share in it in favour of D1 genuinely.

Accordingly, she would pray for the dismissal of the suit.

(c) The trial Court framed the relevant issues.

(d) Up went the trial, during which the plaintiff/Malayappa Gounder examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked; and the seventh defendant/Thirumurthy examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2/Saraswathy(D1) and D.W.3/Palanisamy Gounder (D6) and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.

4. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which the appeal was filed; whereupon the appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit as against D1, granting injunction as under:

5. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, this Second Appeal has been focused on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

“Tamil”

(emphasis supplied)

"(a) When the plaintiff has failed to prove her case that she is in possession of the suit property as a tenant, whether her suit property for permanent injunction in that capacity can be decreed?

(b) When the plaintiff has failed to prove discharge of mortgage and subsequent taking of possession of the suit property as a Lessee, whether her alleged possession in that capacity can be protected by a decree for permanent injunction?

(c) When the Appellant herein is held to be a co-owner of the suit property, whether a suit for permanent injunction by one co-owner namely the plaintiff can lie against the Appellant herein who is the other co-owner of the suit property?"

(extracted as such)

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds of appeal as well as the cited substantial questions of law, would pyramid her argument, which could succinctly and pithily be set out thus:

(a) D1 on purchasing the half share of D7, is entitled to be in possession of the suit property and cultivate the same, and suppressing the material fact that it was D1 who cultivated turmeric in the suit property, the plaintiff is trying to get injunction as against her.

(b) One co-owner cannot get injunction as against another co-owner. By virtue of purchase as per Ex.B1, the sale deed, the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of D7 and hence, injunction granted by the appellate court is a misconceived one, which has to be axed by the second appellate court.

8. At the outset, I would like to fumigate my mind with the r