The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish continuous possession and surrender of possession in the context of a suit for permanent injunction.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the decree and judgment dated 09.04.2013, passed in A.S.No.67 of 2012, on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Karur in reversing the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.192 of 2009, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Karur, dated 30.01.2012.

1. Aggrieved over the reversal finding of the first appellate Court, setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, dismissing the suit filed for bare injunction, the present Second Appeal is filed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to filing of this Second Appeal, are as follows:- The suit property originally belonged to one Palaniyandi Pillai and he has leased out the same in favour of the plaintiff on 15.02.1980, for a period of three years under a Lease Deed. Eversince from the date of said lease, the plaintiff cultivating the property as a cultivating tenant till today and he was in the habit of paying the lease amount to the landlord without any default. Lease amount paid by the plaintiff will be entered into a kutchat book maintained by the plaintiff and after completion of a year, it is usual practice adopted by the lessor that the old book will be retained by the lessor. The said lessor had died in the year 1995, leaving behind his wife Ramayee Ammal. After the death of the said Palaniyandi Pillai, the plaintiff has paid the rent to his wife Ramayee Ammal periodically without any default. The said Ramayee Ammal also died on 30.04.2005 issueless. The defendants are the brother's son of Ramayee Ammal and the plaintiff has continued to pay the rent to the defendants till today and he is in continuous possession of the property. When the matter stood thus, the defendants, with the intention to sell the property to the third parties, demanded the plaintiff to surrender of possession. However, the plaintiff did not do so. Therefore, the defendants on 27.04.2009, attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, a suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. Denying the allegation that the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the property, it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff has handed over the possession of the property to Palaniyandi Pillai, after the expiry of the lease period. Thereafter, the said Palaniyandi Pillai was in possession of the property. After his demise, his wife viz., Ramayee Ammal was enjoying the property. After her death, the defendants have become the absolute owner of the property, by virtue of the 'Will' executed by the said Ramayee Ammal, during her life time. Hence, it is his contention that plaintiff was never in possession of the property and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?

6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B.32 were marked. Exs.X1 to X5 were also marked.

7. The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the property and dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court, however allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, holding that the plaintiff's plea of surrender, after the lease period, have not been established. As against which, the present Second Appeal is filed.

8. While admitting this Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:

“i) Whether in a suit for permanent injunction, the possession on the date of suit has to be decided from the available documents or not?

(ii) Whether