The main legal point established in the judgment is that when seeking permanent injunction, it is essential to prove possession, extent, and lay of the property, and a declaration of title is necessary when there is doubt about the title, lay, and extent of the property.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2008 in A.S.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Attur, reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2008 in O.S.No.413 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur.)

(The case has been heard through video conference)

1. The original suit filed for permanent injunction by the appellant herein was allowed by the trial Court, but reversed in the appeal. The second appeal is filed against the reversing judgment of the first appellate Court.

2. The case of the Appellant/plaintiff:

The suit property comprised in S.No.279/5 of Vadakunadu Pacchapolathivalivu Village, Chinnakalvarayan hills. Theertha Gounder was the owner of the suit property. From him, the plaintiff Theniammal, W/o Pictha gounder purchased 2.06 acres of land out of 1.48.5 hactre with specific boundaries, vide the sale deed Ex.A-1 dated 13/08/1984. The sale deed was executed by Theertha Gounder on his behalf and on behalf of his 7 years old minor son Palani. From the date of purchase, the suit property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The remaining land in the said survey number is in possession of the defendant. For the land in possession of the plaintiff, all revenue records are in the name of the plaintiff. Patta Ex.A-2, chitta Ex.A-3, Adangals Ex.A-5 to Ex.A-7 and kist receipts Ex.A-8 prove her possession of the suit land. The defendant, who failed in the attempt to purchase the land from Theertha gounder, giving pinprick to the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment. On 04/12/1999, the defendant attempted to trespass into the suit land with an intention to damage the crops and dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, the suit to restrain the defendant and his men from in anyway trespass into the suit property by way of permanent injunction.

3. The case of the defendant:

The alleged sale deed Ex.A-1 is not true and genuine. Theertha Gounder the vendor of the plaintiff had no title or alienable right upon the suit property, after selling AC 1.85 cents in the property at S.No.279/5 to Karian and Vadamalai on 10/07/1975, without retaining any portion of the land in the said survey number. The said Karian and Vadamalai, who purchased a total extent of 2.00 acres (AC 1.85 in S.No.279/5 and 0.15 cents in S.No. 279/8) under the sale deed Ex.B-2 on 10/07/1975, sold the entire 2.00 acres to one Arumugam under sale deed dated 28/01/1977. Arumugam in turn sold away the property to Chinnadurai, the father of the defendant, under the sale deed dated 03/12/1984 vide Ex B-3. Thus, the defendant is in possession of the entire extent of the suit property and other portion in the said survey number. He has dealt the property absolutely. He sold a portion of the property to one Ramasamy, who inturn sold it to one Sankaran. He has encumbered the property to one Soundararajan. While so, to grab the property, the plaintiff and Theerthan conspired and had created Ex.A-1 in the year 1984 and had approached the court with unclean hands based on certain fabricated revenue records.

4. The trial Court, on considering the pleadings and evidence held that PW-1 has clearly deposed that the total extent of land in S.No.279/5 is 3 acres 66 cents. Theertha Gounder, after selling 2.00 acres of land together in S.No.279/5 and 279/8 to Kariya Gounder and Vadamalai in the year 1975, the balance land measuring 2.06 acres in S.No 279/5 was sold to Theniammal (plaintiff) in the year 1984 and she had perfect title over the 2.06 acres of land hence entitled for the relief of injunction.

5. On appeal to the first appellate Court, factual error and improper appreciation of the evidence was alleged by the defendant and the same was accepted by the first appellate Court. Hence, the trial court judgment was reversed, resulting in dismissal of the suit for injunction.

6. In the second appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the trial Court