A Suit for bare injunction is not maintainable in the absence of a prayer for Declaration of Title, and there cannot be an injunction against the true owner.

1. The First Defendant is the Appellant in a Suit for bare injunction.

2. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the Suit properties are the ancestral properties of Plaintiffs to an extent of 5 Acres in S.No.92/4 in Valayampattu village. The properties originally belonged to one Raman and after his death, they devolved upon his son Kuppan, who is the father of the First Plaintiff, and his wife, viz., mother of the First Plaintiff. As the Plaintiffs are Adi Dravidas, conditional Patta was issued under UDR Scheme. The Plaintiffs’ family has been enjoying the properties continuously for more than 40 years by paying Kist. As the Defendants attempted to restrain the Plaintiffs from cultivating the lands, the Suit was filed for Permanent Injunction.

3. The Suit was resisted by the Defendants on various grounds. The Defendants admitted that the properties originally were owned by the First Plaintiff’s grandfather Raman and after his death, by his son Kuppan. The said Kuppan, on 15.5.1972, sold half of the Suit properties, i.e. 2.5 Acres in favour of the First Defendant under Ex.B1 and sold the remaining half on the same day to the Third Defendant’s mother Palaniammal. After the death o Palaniammal, her daughter, Third Defendant, has been enjoying the properties. It is admitted by the Defendants that in the Sale Deed instead of properties. It is admitted by the Defendants that in the Sale Deed instead of mentioning the S.No.as 92/4, it is written as S.No.92/3B. It is contended by the Defendants that for the land situate on further south of S.No.92/3, Patta was granted to Raman by sub-dividing it as S.No.92/4 which devolved on his son Kuppan. The said land was sold to the First Defendant and his son Kuppan. The said land was sold to the First Defendant and Palaniammal on 15.5.1972 under the impression that sub-division was made and it was wrongly written as S.No.92/3B. However, the Third Defendant and Palaniammal are enjoying the properties according to the Sale Deeds. As the Defendants claimed title to the property, they prayed for dismissal of the Suit.

4. Before the Trial Court, Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the Plaintiffs and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the Defendants. The First Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 besides examining one Kannan as PW2 while the First Defendants examined himself as DW1 and one Govindan was examined as DW2.

5. The Trial Court/Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, on an elaborate consideration of the facts and evidence and considering that the Suit is only filed for bare Injunction, decreed Suit in O.S.No.488 of 2000 vide Judgment dated 21.2.2002 holding that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the Suit properties. Aggrieved by the same, the Defendants had preferred Appeal in A.S.No.109 of 2003 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, who confirmed the Decree by Judgment dated 30.9.2005 and dismissed the Appeal. Challenging the concurrent finding, the First Defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal.

6. Heard Mr. P. Valliappan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. V. Sanjeevi, learned Counsel representing the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and perused the records.

7. At the time of admission of this Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed for consideration:

Whether Injunction can be granted as against the true owner?

Subsequently, the following additional questions of law were filed by the Appellant giving notice to the Respondents:

(i) When the Appellant has categorically denied the title of the Respondents 1 & 2 and set up title in himself and when there is a serious title dispute, is the Suit for a bare Injunction maintainable?

(ii) When the Respondents 1 & 2 have claimed title to the Suit property and failed to prove the same, can a Decree for Injunction be granted in their favour?

(iii) When it is decisively proved that the Appellant is the owner of the Suit property whether the Respondents 1 & 2 entitled to Dec