The plaintiff's established title to the property and lack of evidence of defamatory allegations influenced the court's decision to grant permanent injunction and dismiss the claim for damages.

This suit has been filed claiming damages of Rs.15,00,000/- and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property more fully mentioned in the schedule of the suit.

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaint are as follows:

The suit property was originally purchased by the plaintiff, his mother and brother in the year 1995. Subsequently, the plaintiff's mother and his brother settled their 2/3rd undivided share in the property in favour of the plaintiff on 27.08.2012. Therefore, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property and ever since, he has been possession and enjoyment of the said property. The defendants claim to have entered into an agreement of sale for the purchase of a portion of the suit property from one R.Velayudham and others in the year 1990. In this regard, the suit in C.S.No.613 of 1996 has been filed for specific performance and the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution long back. It is the further case of the plaintiff that 4 cents of adjacent land to the plaintiff's property was purchased by the plaintiff's brother in the year 1995 by way of a registered document. Plaintiff's brother Umapathy settled the above property in favour of the plaintiff on 27.08.2012. The plaintiff thus became absolute owner of the entire property. The suit filed in O.S.No.1073 of 1996 by the second defendant to enforce the above agreement was also dismissed for non-prosecution. The revenue records have also been changed in the name of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff commenced development in the property owned by him, about 6 months back, the first defendant, who has no right whatsoever in the property made an attempt to interfere in the construction activity and also made scandalous allegation against the plaintiff by giving a complaint to the police. The first defendant has given security by the Orders of the High Court. Taking advantage of the same, the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff with the security officer and also made scandalous allegations against the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the defendants on 18.04.2013 and 24.04.2013. However, no reply was sent. In view of the allegations which was scandalous, the plaintiff was put to great mental agony. Hence the suit for damages and for permanent injunction.

3. Though notice was served on the defendants long back, they have not chosen either to appear in person or through counsel. Therefore, they were set ex parte by this Court on 13.10.2014.

4. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 were marked.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the records.

6. P.W.1 in his evidence has spoken about the purchase of the property in the year 1995 by his mother, brother and himself and also spoken about the purchase of 4 cents of adjacent land by his brother and subsequently settlement of the property in his favour. He has also spoken about his continuous possession of the property.

7. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 marked on his side. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4, when carefully perused, item-1 of the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff, his mother and his brother. They purchased the above property from one R.Velayudham, R.Sundararajan, R.Deivayani, R.Prema and R.Shantha. Ex.P.6 shows purchase of the second item of the property by the plaintiff's brother. Ex.P.7 Deed of Settlement dated 28.08.2012 clearly show that the plaintiff's mother and brother have settled their share of the property in favour of the plaintiff. From these documents, the plaintiff proved his title to the suit properties. The suit filed by the first defendant as could be seen from Ex.P.5 was not prosecuted. The pleading in the plaint in Ex.P.5 by the first defendants also does not show that they have been given possession of the property based on the alleged sale agreement dated 25.07.1990. F