The court established that the issue of title can be decided in a suit for injunction as an exception to the normal rule, based on necessary pleadings and issues, and the principles laid down in Ananthula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy.

S. Vimala, J.

(i) In a suit for injunction, when it is necessary to seek the relief of declaration of title, either as a main/consequential relief ?

(ii) In a suit for injunction, whether seeking the prayer for declaration of title would be mandatory, whenever the defendant denies the title of the plaintiff to the suit property ?

(iii) When a person's title to the property can be claimed to be cloudy ? - when there is apparent defect in the title of the plaintiff to the property ; or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out; or on account of mere denial of the plaintiff's title by the defendant ?

These issues are arising for consideration in this second appeal.

2. The plaintiff (Dr. K. Selvaraj) filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 5. Defendants 1 and 2 are husband and wife, of whom, third defendant is the son and defendants 4 and 5 are daughters. The plaintiff claimed title to the suit properties, by virtue of the sale deed, dated 15.04.1999. Plaintiff's predecessor in title, namely, S. Shanmugam, purchased the suit properties from defendants 1 to 3, on 29.12.1997. Claiming that, defendants 4 and 5 have got right and interest over the suit properties, there was interference with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. On these allegations, the suit for injunction in O.S.No.238 of 1999 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, was filed.

2.1. Defendants 1 to 3 disputed the claim on the ground that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor in title had title to the suit properties. Defendants had no intention to sell the property. The plaintiff's vendor (Shanmugam) was a partner in M/s.Sun Finance Company, from which, the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- as loan. A conditional sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff's vendor, with a condition that whenever defendants repay the loan amount, the plaintiff's vendor should re-convey the property, by executing the sale deed.

2.2. The plaintiff's vendor filed a suit in O.S.No.614 of 1998. After obtaining an order of injunction, the plaintiff's vendor trespassed into the property.

2.3. Defendants 4 and 5 filed a written statement contending that the suit properties were ancestral properties and some of them are properties purchased from and out of the joint family income. Defendants 1 to 3, unmindful of the share of defendants 4 and 5, executed the sale deed, for the purpose of obtaining loan from M/s.Sun Finance Company. Defendants 4 and 5 were not aware of the sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 3. Defendants 4 and 5 filed a suit in O.S.No.656 of 1998, seeking for a declaration that the sale deed is not valid and for a relief of partition and separate possession.

2.4. The plaintiff relied upon Ex.P-7-kist receipt and Exs.P-8 to P-11-adangal extracts. The plaintiff claimed that defendants 4 and 5 executed a Muchalika under Ex.P-12 with the plaintiff's vendor (Shanmugam) in which, defendants 4 and 5 agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- and to get the sale deed executed from the plaintiff's vendor. Disbelieving Ex.P-12-Muchalika and giving a finding that documents filed did not prove possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, the suit was dismissed.

3. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2000 before the Subordinate Court, Namakkal. The appeal was allowed, thereby the suit came to be decreed. Challenging the same, defendants 4 and 5 have filed this Second Appeal.

4. The Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the lower appellate court was right in relying upon Ex.A12 to hold that the appellants have lost their rights more so when Ex.A12 is unregistered?

2. Whether the lower appellate court was right in reversing the factual findings of the trial court without giving its reasons for not agreeing with the trial court?

5. A perusal of the judgment of the first appellate court goes to show that the Court ha