Settled possession warrants protection regardless of title dispute, entitling the possessor to a decree of permanent injunction.

S. NAGAMUTHU, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 1109 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, Chennai are the appellants herein. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The said suit was originally filed by the plaintiff against the first defendant for permanent inunction to restrain him from in any manner interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the first defendant died and therefore, the defendants 2 to 4 were brought on record as his legal representatives. The trial Court by decree and judgment dated 11.06.2010, dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 69 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram, Chennai. By decree and judgment dated 21.08.2013, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the defendants are before this Court with this second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-

The suit property is plot No. 39 comprised in S. Nos. 524, 525, 526 and 527 in Mumorthy Nagar No. 158, Zamin Pallavaram, Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District. One Mr. Venkatarama Iyer was the owner of the entire extent of the land before it was plotted out. He was given power of attorney to one Mr. Shanmugam to plot out the property and to sell the same. Accordingly, a lay out was formed, on the above lands mentioned in the survey numbers, in which, according to the plaintiff, she purchased Plot No. 39. According to the further case of the plaintiff, the first defendant purchased Plot Nos. 38 & 39 under Ex.B.1 in the name of his wife. But according to the plaintiff, the first defendant never entered into possession of the Plot No. 39. She was in possession of the suit property all along. It is her further case that she has constructed a building on the suit property and which has been assessed to house tax by the local body.

3. The first defendant in his written statement, contended that, he has purchased Plot Nos. 38 & 39 and from the date of purchase, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further stated that the plaintiff, occupied a portion of the suit property and when she was asked to vacate, she obtained an agreement from the first defendant, by force, on 17.07.1985, by playing fraud upon him. It is further stated that though, the plaintiff had put up a construction in a portion of the suit property, she has got no title for the suit property. The first defendant filed yet another suit for recovery of possession of the said occupied portion from the plaintiff.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed appropriate issues. On the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined and twenty documents were exhibited. On the side of the defendants, one witness was examined and three documents were exhibited.

5. Having considered all the above, the trial Court dismissed the suit which was reversed by the First Appellate Court. That is how the appellants/ defendants are before this Court with this second appeal.

6. When this second appeal was admitted, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:-

(i) Whether the agreement of sale executed by non-title holder has any validity in the eyes of law in the absence of any general power of attorney in his favour?

(ii) Whether can an encroacher without title is entitled for permanent injunction in accordance with law?

(iii) Whether an agreement of sale said to have been executed on a date prior to a date of purchase such non-judicial paper is valid in the eyes of law?

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

8. The dispute in this case is only in respect of Plot No. 39. This is a simple suit for injunction. In this case, we are concerned only with the p