The central legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for injunction may not be maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title when there is a dispute over the property and adverse possession cannot be used as a basis for seeking a declaration of ownership.

The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2002 in A.S.No.130 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Ariyalur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.1998 in O.S.No.361 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.

2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:-

(i) The suit property is the portion of the plaintiff's garden and the plaintiff is in possession of the same openly, continuously and uninterruptedly from 1967 onwards and the same was shown as “B C E F” in the plan. The defendant is constructing a house on the northern side of the house property and garden of the plaintiff and the land belonging to the defendant is a Government poramboke land. The defendant made an attempt to interfere with the plaintiff's possession stating that the defendant has right over 3 ½ feet on the southern side of “B C” wall, which was shown as suit property. Further, the defendant put up two windows on the suit property and also 1 ½ feet slab which is protruding into the southern side of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for mandatory injunction to remove the slab which is protruding into the plaintiff's property. Thus, he prayed for decree.

3. The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:

(i) The plaintiff has no right over the suit property. The plaintiff has not filed any relevant documents to prove that the suit property is in the survey number which mentioned in the plaint is belonging to him. Further, the plaintiff has not entitled to right over the property namely, the vacant land situated on the northern side of his property.

(ii) The defendant has right over the suit property which is measuring 3 ½ feet and 2 feet on its southern side. The plaintiff has alone constructed a wall on the 'A B ' line, for which, the defendant has lodged a complaint. One Varadarajan, Panchayat President allotted the lands measuring 30 feet from the north to south to the plaintiff and others and separate pattas were given to each of them. One Rasu, who is the Barber, was allotted the land in between the lands of the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff has encroached upon the land of Rasu and constructed a building ad measuring 14 feet from north to south. Since the plaintiff is working in the Court, the said Rasu unable to evict him, has given the balance land with an extent of 16 ½ feet from the north to south to the defendant on 29.06.1991 orally by receiving Rs.6,000/-.

(iii) Since the plaintiff has not filed the suit for declaration of title, the suit itself is not maintainable. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The Learned Trial Judge after considering the averments both in the plaint and written statement and arguments on either side counsel, has framed necessary issues and on perusing the oral and documentary evidence viz., P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1, D.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A28, Exs.B1 to B6 and Exs.C1 to C4, decreed the suit. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.130 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Ariyalur.

5. The learned First Appellate Court has considered the arguments advanced on either side, framed necessary point for consideration, confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. Against the Decree and Judgment passed by the first Appellate Court, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant.

6. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:

1. Whether the judgments of the courts below are vitiated on account of the wrong casting of onus and burden of proof on the defendant instead of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the decisi