In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2004 passed in A.S.No.14/2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam, partly reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2004 passed in O.S. No.313 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether on facts of this case, without a prayer for declaration, a suit for bare injunction alone is maintainable?”

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved in the matter as regards the subject matter between the parties lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. The suit has been laid simpliciter for the relief of permanent injunction by the plaintiff against the defendants and considering the plaint averments, it is found that the plaintiff seeks exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties mainly upon the partition deed dated 10.07.91, marked as Ex.A1 and on that footing contending that the suit properties, as described in the plaint, are in his exclusive possession and enjoyment and alleging that the defendants, without any authority, are attempting to interfere with his possession and enjoyment with reference to the suit properties, the suit has come to be laid by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction.

5. The defendants have disputed the claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as projected in the plaint and further, the defendants have also contended that the description of the suit properties are not correct, both particulars wise as well as extent wise and alleging that the defendants are also enjoying the suit properties in proportion as detailed in the written statement and also claiming that they are also in the possession and enjoyment of the properties as having been acquired by them and further alleging that the plaintiff has suppressed the common enjoyment of the properties in dispute by the parties concerned, contended that the suit laid by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Further, the defendants have also taken a plea that the suit laid by the plaintiff without seeking the relief of declaration is not maintainable and accordingly, on that ground also, claimed that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. Based on the materials placed on record by the respective parties, the trial Court was pleased to grant the relief sought for by the plaintiff in respect of survey Nos.1175/1, 5, 10, 15 and 19 and dismissed the suit as regards survey No.1175/6 and 12. As against the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit with reference to the survey Nos.1175/6 and 12, the plaintiff has not preferred any appeal. However, as against the grant of decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the survey numbers as above stated, the defendants, challenging the same, preferred the first appeal. The first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record, was pleased to set-aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court as regards the grant of the relief of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the survey Nos.1175/1, 5, 10, 15 and 19 and accordingly, by way of allowing the appeal preferred by the defendants, dismissed the plaintiff's suit in entirety. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been laid.

7. The second appeal has been admitted on the short point as to whether the suit laid by the plaintiff, without seeking the relief of declaration, simpliciter for the relief of permanent injunction is maintainable.

8. Considering the pleas put forth by the respective parties in the matter, it is found that the defendants have tooth and nail disputed the claim of title to the suit properties as projected by the plaintiff. Not only that, the defendants have also disputed the description of the suit property, both particulars wise as well as extent wise.