The main legal point established is the requirement to establish possession, enjoyment, and title in a suit for permanent injunction, and the dismissal of claims without substantiating evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree of Subordinate Judge Court, Kallakurichi dated 15.07.2008 in A.S.No.21 of 2005 confirming the judgment and decree of Additional District Munsif-II, Kallakurichi in O.S.No.976 of 2000 dated 24.11.2004).

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2008 passed in A.S.No.21 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2004 passed in O.S.No.976 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court -II, Kallakurichi.

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

3. The defendant in O.S.No.976 of 2000 is the appellant in this second appeal.

4. Suit for permanent injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of their father Anthoni Muthu and the same had been allotted to Anthoni Muthu by way of a partition and a joint patta had also been issued by the Tahsildar on 09.07.1994 in favour of Anthoni Muthu and by way of a registered partition deed dated 17.04.2000 entered into between the plaintiffs, their brothers and their father, the first item of the suit properties had been allotted to the first plaintiff and the second item of the suit properties had been allotted to the second plaintiff and since then, the plaintiffs had been enjoying the suit properties absolutely and also made improvements in the suit properties and the defendant without any manner of right, title or interest over the suit properties, attempted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment and hence according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendant, for the relief of permanent injunction.

6. The defendant resisted the plaintiffs' suit contending that the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit properties had been allotted to their father Anthoni Muthu by way of a partition and that the joint patta had been issued in the name of Anthoni Muth by the Tahsildar and by way of the subsequent partition deed dated 17.04.2000, the suit properties had been allotted to the plaintiffs as putforth in the plaint are all false and further contended that the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendant has no right, title or interest over the suit properties are also false and according to the defendant, the suit properties belonged to one Nayagam and Nayagam was allotted the suit properties by way of a partition which took place in his family and during August 1982, Nayagam sold the suit properties to the defendant, who since then has been enjoying the suit properties by paying Kists etc., in his own right and also by obtaining patta and as the son of Nayagam interfered with the defendant's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, the defendant preferred the suit against him and the compromise decree had been passed in the abovesaid suit and despite the abovesaid position, the plaintiffs with a view to grab the suit properties had come forward with the present suit without any cause of action and the plaintiffs' suit without seeking the relief of declaration qua the suit properties is not maintainable and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit.

7. In support of the plaintiffs' case, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

8. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the matter and the submissions putforth by the respective parties, the Courts below were pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for. Challenging the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

9. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration.

(i) Whether the Courts below are legally justifi