Failure to provide a clear and identifiable description of immovable property in a suit may lead to the dismissal of the suit for lack of cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and the judgment dated 27.12.2007 rendered in A.S.No.307 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court - V), Chennai, confirming the decree and the judgment dated 01.03.2006 rendered in O.S.No.6004 of 2003 on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court at Chennai).

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 27.12.2007 passed in A.S. No.307/07 on the file of the Additional District Judge (FTC), Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2006 passed in O.S.No.6004/03 on the file of the XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

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

3. The defendant in O.S. No.6004 of 2003 is the appellant in the Second Appeal.

4. Suit for permanent injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that he is the owner of the premises, namely, the building and the ground bearing No.91/06, Khonnur High Road, Ayyanavaram, Chennai 600 023, ever since the same had been settled in his favour by his deaceased father Thomas Samson by way of the settlement deed dated 31.03.2001 and the abovesaid property had been purchased by his father by way of the sale deed dated 26.09.1996 from the defendant and his mother and sister. The suit property originally belonged to one Gopinath, the father of the defendant and after his demise, the defendant along with his mother and sister, being the legal heirs of the property belonging to Gopinath measuring about an extent of 3025 sq. ft. and sold out a part of it, namely 575 sq. ft. i.e. 25x23 sq. ft. along with building to the plaintiff's father under the sale deed dated 26.09.1996. The plaintiff's father, after making some additions and alterations, put up a xerox shop along with PCO and STD booth in the suit premises and after his demise, the plaintiff took over the same and running the business. While the plaintiff's father was alive, the defendant along with his mother and sister, attempted to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's property on the southern side and thereby endeavoured to encroach the vacant land admeasuring about 100 sq. ft by removing and demolishing the fence put up by the plaintiff's father and consequently, the plaintiff's father laid a suit against them in O.S.No.7507/1998 and obtained an ad-interim injunction against them. Pending the abovesaid suit, the plaintiff's father having died on 01.04.2001, the abovesaid suit had been dismissed as abated on 29.07.2003. Thereafter, the defendant deliberately, on 19.11.2003, along with his men attempted to trespass and remove the fence put up on the southern side of the property and tried to encroach the vacant land of 100 sq. ft. and also to achieve his end, approached the police by using his influence and the police also attempted to intervene in the matter and hence the plaintiff was necessitated to issue the legal notice to the inspector of police, K2, Ayyanavaram Police Station not to interfere in the civil dispute and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to institute the suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction.

6. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the present suit laid by the plaintiff is the second suit for the same relief, which had been already claimed in O.S.No.7507/1998 and therefore, the present suit is barred by Res judicata and admitted that the plaintiff's father had purchased 575 sq. ft. by way of the sale deed dated 26.09.1996, however, it is put forth that there was no vacant land on the southern side of the property conveyed and the vacant land was located only in the northern side of the plaintiff's property. However, the plaintiff's father suddenly broke the southern side wall of his shop and for making way for an entry into the defendant's property