The need for clinching evidence of possession in a property dispute and the scope of deciding title and validity of documents in a bare injunction Suit.

1. This Second Appeal is filed by the Defendants, animadverting upon the Judgment and Decree dated 26.4.2004 passed by the Subordinate Court, Sankari, reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2003 passed by the District Munsif Court, Sankari, in O.S. No. 131 of 2002, 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. The epitome and the long and short of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(i) The Respondent/Plaintiff herein-Nallathambi filed the Suit seeking permanent injunction in respect of the house property described in the schedule of the Plaint.

(ii) The Appellants/Defendants filed the Written Statement resisting the Suit.

(iii) Whereupon issues were framed. Up went the trial, during which, the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 along with one Solomon as PW2 & Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on his side. On the Defendants' side one Chellammal was examined as DW1 along with Madhu as PW2 and Exs.B1 to B21 were marked on their side. Ex.11 was marked as Court document.

(iv) Ultimately the Trial Court dismissed the Suit, as against which, the First Appeal was filed. Whereupon the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trail Court and decreed the Suit.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, this Second Appeal has been filed by the Defendants on various grounds suggesting the substantial questions of law.

5. Whereupon my learned Predecessor formulated the following substantial questions of law:

“1. Whether the Sale Deed under Ex.A2 convey title to the Plaintiff, especially when the Power of Attorney Deed-Ex.A3 was executed by Ramasamy (Principal) authorizing his agent Ramakrishnan only to sell the property to one Perumal and not the Plaintiff?

2. Whether the Suit for bare Injunction is valid in law especially when the title of the Plaintiff is seriously disputed by the Defendants?

3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court right in holding that the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property ignoring the very valid documentary evidence under Exs.B6 to B21?”

6. Heard both sides.

7. The learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants would pyramid his arguments which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:

(i) The First Appellate Court fell into error in ushering in the presumption, to wit, ‘possession follows title’ in respect of house property. Such a presumption is possible only in respect of vacant site and not in respect of house property.

(ii) Absolutely there is no shard or shred, molecular or jot of objective evidence available to prove that the Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of filing of the Suit.

(iii) The Suit also was bad for want of a prayer for declaration of title in view of the fact that the records would reveal that there is serious title dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

(iv) The Defendants went to the extent of disputing Ex.A2 - the Sale Deed, dated 21.8.1993, executed by Ramakrishnan in favour of Nallathambi as well as Ex.A3 - the Power Deed dated 26.3.1993, executed by Ramasamy Gounder in favour of one Ramakrishnan.

(v) The First Appellate Court was not right in ignoring Ex.B6 to B21, which would speak in support of the contention of the Defendants that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Appellants/Defendants would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court.

8. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff in a bid to torpedo and pulverize the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the Appellants/Defendants, would advance his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:

(a) Ex.A2 is a registered Sale Deed dated 21.8.1998 executed