The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a suit for injunction, the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue unless de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property.

1. The second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree, dated 19.08.2009 passed in A.S.No.12 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 10.09.2008 made in O.S.No.341 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram.

2. The suit was filed by the respondent herein against the appellants, seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants, their men, agent etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for costs.

3. The suit was decreed after the trial, as prayed for without costs, against which, the defendants preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court, by its Judgment and Decree, dated 19.08.2009, confirmed the Judgment and Decree and dismissed the appeal without costs. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree passed by the Appellate Court, this second appeal has been preferred by the defendants.

4. It is seen that the second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

"1. Whether the suit for bare injunction, when there is a cloud or dispute or rival claim on title of the property is maintainable ?

2. Whether the question of title can be decided in a suit for bare injunction, when the issue of title involves complicated or complex questions of fact and law ?

3. Whether the burden of proof regarding possession lies on the plaintiff or defendant in a suit for injunction ?"

5. Substantial Questions of Law 1 & 2 :

The respondent / plaintiff has stated that her mother, Tmt.Muniammal inherited the suit schedule property from her father, late Ganapathy Naicker and on 13.07.2007, she execute a settlement deed in favour of her daughter, the respondent / plaintiff in Document No.7172/07 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram, stating that on 02.08.2007, at about 3 p.m, when the plaintiff and her family members were in the said property for developing the said property, the defendants, who were utter strangers to the suit schedule property with the help of land developers and brokers attempted to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, which was resisted by the plaintiff and her relatives. Then, she gave a police complaint at Selaiyur police station and subsequently, filed the suit.

6. The appellants / defendants have admitted that the suit property was originally owned by Ganapathy Naicker, maternal grand father of the respondent / plaintiff and after his demise, the same was inherited by her mother, Muniammal. The written statement filed by the second appellant / D2 was adopted by the first appellant / D1, wherein it is stated that on 21.03.1994, Muniammal had entered into an oral sale agreement with the first appellant / D1, paternal uncle's son of the said Muniammal and accordingly, he was also put in possession of the suit property and further, stated that Muniammal had executed a general power of attorney deed, dated 21.03.1994 in favour of the first defendant, registered as Document No.7429 of 2007 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Tambaram, authorising the first appellant / D1 to sell and administer the suit property. In the written statement, the second appellant / D2 has stated that the first defendant had been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property as power of attorney agent of Muniammal. On 23.07.2007, the first appellant / first defendant sold the property to the second appellant / second defendant, as power of attorney of Muniammal, for a sum of Rs.2,44,160/-, as per a registered sale deed. According to the second defendant / D2, patta was also transferred in the name of second appellant on 18.09.2007. On 28.07.2007, the first defendant received an undated letter from Muniammal, informing him about the cancellation of general power of attorney deed, dated 28.07.2007, registered as Document No.3487 of 2007 by Muniammal. It was argued