The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for injunction without a declaration of title is maintainable when the denial of the plaintiff's right is not bonafide, and the title is not seriously disputed.

This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11.11.2016 made in A.S.No.310 of 2014 on the file of the XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2014 made in O.S.No.10979 of 2010 on the file of the IV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The defendant is the appellant herein. He succeeded before the Trial Court, but lost before the I Appellate Court. The first respondent/plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the Schedule B mentioned premises and permanent injunction restraining the appellant from in any way dealing with or encumbering, alienating the Schedule B property.

3. According to the first respondent, appellant is her brother. Their mother Yesodhammal was allotted a property bearing plot No.153, Door No.25, Sadasivam Street, Purusaiwakkam, Chennai 600 007, measuring an extent of 1250 Sq.Ft, described in A Schedule property by the Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board. After death of their mother, Yesodhammal, the first respondent and appellant gave a letter to the second respondent for partition of the property. The second respondent has partitioned the property into Plot No.153A, measuring 625 Sq.Ft and 153B measuring 525 Sq.Ft and left common pathway of 100 Sq.Ft from East to West. Plot No.153A was allotted to appellant and 153B was allotted to the first respondent. The sketch was annexed with regard to sub division and separate allotment orders were issued to the appellant and first respondent. The first respondent was using the common pathway from the date of allotment. She has put up RCC roofing and using upstairs for several years. When she wanted to put up doors on the ground floor of the pathway, the appellant prevented her from putting up any door or window. The appellant has constructed a gate at the entrance of common pathway and prevented the ingress and egress of the first respondent through the common pathway. The appellant with rowdy elements, came and threatened the first respondent with dire consequences. The first respondent gave a complaint to the police. The first respondent issued notice dated 16.09.2010 to the appellant. The appellant sent a reply dated 18.09.2010, containing false averments. On 20.09.2010, the appellant came with rowdy elements and threatened the first respondent. The first respondent lodged a complaint to the police on 21.09.2010 and filed the suit.

4. The appellant filed written statement and denied all the averments. According to the appellant, the first respondent was allotted Plot No.153A and Plot No.153B to him under World Bank Scheme. The pathway mentioned in Schedule B is not common pathway. It is allotted to him exclusively by the second respondent. He has put up RCC roofing as he is parking his two-wheeler in pathway. He has put up a gate at the entrance of Schedule B pathway with a view to safeguard from trespassers and the first respondent has no right over the pathway and RCC is not put up by her as alleged by her. The appellant denied that he threatened the first respondent with rowdy elements. On the other hand, he has given a complaint to the police against the first respondent. He has no intention of selling the property bearing Plot No.153A allotted to him.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed necessary issues. Before the learned Trial Judge, the first respondent examined herself as P.W.1 and marked 23 documents as Exs.A1 to A23. The appellant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked 14 documents as Exs.B1 to B14. The report of the Advocate Commissioner and sketch were marked as Exs.C1 and C2 and the objections filed by the appellant to the Commissioner's report was marked as Ex.C3. The learned Trial Judge considering the pleadings, oral and the documentary evidence, dismissed the suit with liberty to the first respondent to maintain her southern wall by having access of