A suit for injunction is not maintainable without a relief of declaration when the title is disputed. The scope for interference with concurrent findings of fact under Section 100 CPC is limited.

The present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs under Section 100 CPC challenging the concurrent findings of the trial Court, viz., First Additional District Munsif, Erode, in O.S. 232 of 2002 by judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005 and confirmation of the same by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, in A.S. No. 75 of 2005 by judgment and decree dated 29.11.2005, as regards their prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' Schedule property in any manner.

2. Suit O.S. No. 232 of 2002 had been filed by the plaintiffs for relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property consists of 46 cents, viz., the rocky portion indicated in the Commissioner's sketch appended herein. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff and the other co-sharer, viz., his brother Krishna Ramsamy, divided the suit property under the registered partition deed dated 21.5.2001 in which each of them were allotted 23 cents with definite boundaries. Pursuant to the said partition, the plaintiffs claim to be in absolute possession and enjoyment of this portion as indicated in the sketch. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant attempted to trespass into their property and hence, they were constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction.

3. The defence taken by the defendant was that he purchased 4 Acres of punja land from one Krishna Ramasamy, brother of the first plaintiff, with specific boundaries by sale deed dated 04.3.1983 and that from the date of purchase, he has been in enjoyment of the same. According to the defendants, the suit for bare injunction without seeking relief of declaration of title is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the same.

4. The trial Court, before which the parties examined themselves and marked documents, on consideration of the materials, including the Commissioner's Report and Sketch marked as Exs. C.1 and C.2 respectively, by judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005, while granting injunction in respect of 'B' Schedule property, dismissed the suit for permanent injunction with respect to suit 'A' Schedule property finding that the plaintiffs have no valid title over the same. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs as against the dismissal of suit in respect of 'A' Schedule property, in A.S. No. 75 of 2005 before the Lower Appellate Court/Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, also met the same fate. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed the instant Second Appeal before this Court in S.A. No. 679 of 2009.

5. The point that arises for determination in this Second Appeal is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as sought for in the absence of any valid title over the suit 'A' Schedule property.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

7. From the materials available on record, it is seen that earlier, a preliminary decree was passed in O.S. No. 402 of 1972 as per which the first plaintiff Shanmugham and his brother Krishna Ramasamy, who is not a party in this proceeding, divided orally entitling themselves to a share in S.F. No. 257/B1 and 258/1, which was assigned Re-survey No. 292. Admittedly, at the time of partition, the total extent of the property was 12.50 Acres. It is not in dispute that after partition, the brothers, leaving 20 cents in common, divided the rest of the property among themselves. Subsequently, the said Krishna Ramasamy sold 4 Acres of the land to the present defendant under Ex. A.4 = B. 13 sale deed dated 04.3.1983, which the defendant claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the same.

8. The fact remains that the suit property was the joint family property of the first plaintiff and his brother Krishna Ramasamay. As such, it is clear that both the first plaintiff and the said Krishna Ramasamy will have equal rights over the same. Since Krishna Ramasamy sold his portion of the property, after partiti