The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proving possession and title in cases of permanent injunction.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in both SAs: These Second Appeals are filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2001, made in A.S.Nos.34 & 33 of 2000 on the file of the District Court, Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam, confirming the decree and judgment dated 05.09.2000 made in O.S.Nos.25 & 26 of 1997, respectively, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthagamandalam.)

1. These Second Appeals have been filed as against the common judgment and decree dated 03.09.2001, passed in A.S.Nos.34 & 33 of 2000 by the learned District Judge, Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam, confirming the common judgment and decree dated 05.09.2000 made in O.S.Nos.25 & 26 of 1997, respectively, by the learned District Munsif, Uthagamandalam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial Court.

S.A.No.1838 of 2001

3. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.25 of 1997 in brief is as follows :-

3.1. The suit is filed for permanent injunction. The suit property belonged to the plaintiff and she has been in enjoyment and possession there on. Originally the suit property along with other properties allotted to one Nallusamy Naidu and he died intestate on 22.08.1984, by executing a Will dated 22.08.1979 in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff purchased 6 cents by a registered sale deed dated 01.12.1993. On the strength of the lease agreement, the defendants with ulterior motive are trying to trespass into the suit property. Hence the suit.

4. Resisting the same, the first defendant filed written statement stating that the third defendant has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property and she has leased out the same to the first defendant. The sale deed as mentioned by the plaintiff has not admitted and the plaintiff has no title or interest over the suit property, once the lease agreement is true and genuine one. While being so, the plaintiff is attempted to trespass into the suit property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The third defendant filed separate written statement by stating that the plaintiff’s vendors had no title, right or interest over the suit property. The said Nallusamy Naidu died intestate is admitted and the allegation that he bequeathed the land to the second defendant is false. Further the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.

S.A.No.1839 of 2001

6. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.26 of 1997 in brief is as follows :-

6.1. The suit property belonged to the plaintiff and she has been in enjoyment and possession there on. Originally the suit property along with other properties allotted to one Nallusamy Naidu and he died intestate on 24.08.1984 by executing a Will dated 22.08.1979 to the second defendant. The plaintiff purchased 10 cents from various parties on 07.02.1996. On the strength of the lease agreement, the defendants are trying to trespass into the suit property. The defendants have no title or right over the suit property. Hence the suit.

7. Resisting the same, the first defendant filed separate written statement and stated that the third defendant has been in exclusively possession and enjoyment of the suit property and she leased out the suit property to the first defendant. The sale deed produced by the plaintiff has not admitted and she has no title and interest over the suit property. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8. The third defendant filed separate written statement by stating that the plaintiff’s vendors had no title, right or interest over the suit property. The said Nallusamy Naidu died intestate is admitted and the allegation that he bequeathed the land to the second defendant is false. Further the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.

9. The trial Court conducted separate trial in the above two suits. In O.S.No.25 of 1997 on the side of the plaintiff,