The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for permanent injunction may not be legally sustainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title, especially when the plaintiff's title is denied by the defendants.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed in A.S. No.59/07 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, reversing the decree and judgment dated 18.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.180/05 by the Second Additional Sub Judge Court, Erode.

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2007 passed in A.S. No.59/07 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2006 passed in O.S.No.180/05 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Erode.

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

3. The plaintiff in O.S. No.180 of 2005 is the appellant in the Second Appeal.

4. Suit for permanent injunction.

5. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the first defendant is the mother of the defendants 2 to 4 and the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's father Chellappa Gounder by way of the registered sale deed dated 24.11.1952 and thereafter, Chellappa Gounder had executed a settlement deed in favour of his son, namely the plaintiff, by way of the settlement deed dated 09.09.1985 and the plaintiff obtained the possession of the property by way of the settlement deed and enjoying the same till date and the suit property was originally a vacant site upon which the plaintiff built up a terraced house about 15 years back and enjoying the same by paying the house tax, etc., and the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants is not smooth and cordial and when the plaintiff wanted to demolish the house in the suit property and build up a new building in the same and for that purpose when he removed the tiles in the roof on 15.04.2004, the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's endeavour without any basis and hence according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to institute the suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction.

6. The defendants resisted the plaintiff's suit contending that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and disputed that the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's father Chellappa Gounder as put forth in the plaint and that according to the defendants, the suit property is the undivided property belonging to the family of Sengoda Gounder, who had three sons, namely, Muthusamy, Nachimuthu and Marappa Gounder and it is their ancestral property and the plaintiff is the sister's son of Sengoda Gounder. There had been a partition suit of the family properties pending between the family members and the alleged settlement deed dated 09.09.1985 said to have been executed by Cellappa Gounder in favour of the plaintiff is not binding upon the defendants and the plaintiff's suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, namely, the other sharers who have shares and interest in the suit property. The suit has been laid by the plaintiff at the instigation of Arunachalam and Karuppayammal with a view to delay the partition, particularly the suit proceedings in O.S. No.66 of 2003 laid for partition. The suit property is the building built up by Sengoda Gounder and as well as a vacant site and after the demise of Sengoda Gounder, his son built up a separate house and it continues in the possession of the defendants' family and till date the patta and the revenue records stand in the name of the defendants' father. The plaintiff has never in he possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the suit building is already in a dilapidated condition and the suit property has not been properly described and suppressing the above said materials, the plaintiff has come forward with the false suit. The plaintiff, without any cause of action, has laid the suit and hence prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. In the additional written statement, the defendants would plead that the plain