Point Of Law: Suit For Injunction – Dispute Of Title – Without Seeking Relief Of Declaration Of Title Suit For Injunction Not Maintainable

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2011 made in A.S.No.38 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Kanchipuram confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2009 made in O.S.No.546 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur by allowing this Second Appeal.)

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the courts below is the appellant before this Court. The relief in the suit, which is the subject matter of this appeal, is for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any portion of the suit property which is in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The suit property measures 1.06 acres and is situate in Sriperumbudur Village comprised in S.No.1626/1I2 -measuring 31 cents, S.No.1626/1I4 - measuring 41 cents and S.No.1626/1I5 -measuring 34 cents. The parties are referred in their same rank as in the suit.

2. Plaintiff’s Case:

2.1. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was owned by his vendor Mr. C. Raji, son of Chinnaswamy. The said Raji had executed a power of attorney in favour of one E.Kalaimani son of S. Elumalai. The said Kalaimani had sold the property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 08.09.1997, as the power of attorney of one Raji.

2.2. The plaintiff would further submit that he and his predecessor-in-title were in open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property. While so, on 15.09.1997, the defendant attempted to encroach into the suit property and form a road, which was successfully thwarted by the plaintiff. As the defendant firm is very powerful, the plaintiff apprehends that they would somehow enter into the suit property. Hence the suit.

3. Written statement of the defendant:

3.1. The defendant had filed the written statement initially denying the sale in favour of the plaintiff and that the property belonged to Raju. They also denied the alleged trespass on 15.09.1997. It was their case that the suit survey number was originally part of S.No.1626/2 - measuring a total extent of 2.52 acres. These lands belonged to one Kesava Ramanuja Reddiar, who had sold the property to one Balakrishna Chowdary, under a sale deed dated 17.05.1958. Thereafter, the said Balakrishna Chowdary had sold the property to Chinnammal under a sale deed dated 06.02.1967. The U.D.R patta was issued in the name of Chinnammal and her two sons Gopu and Nithyanandam. Since the plaintiff’s vendor Raju was attempting to trespass into the property, Chinnammal and her two sons had filed O.S.No.502 of 1992. They had also taken out an interlocutory application in I.A.No.953/92, restraining the said Raju from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. This Court had also granted an interim order and the said suit is still pending, consequently the interim order as well.

3.2. On 19.12.1990, Chinnammal had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant and put them in possession of the property. During the pendency of the suit O.S.No.502 of 1992, and the subsistence of the injunction order, Raju had clandestinely obtained mutation of the revenue records in his favour by an order dated 12.05.1994. This order came to be passed without notice to the owner of the property. On the basis of this patta, the said Raju had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one R.Vijayaraghavan. Thereafter, Chinnammal and her two sons filed O.S.No.40 of 1995 for a declaration of their title to the suit property and the same is pending. Thereafter, the defendant had filed an additional written statement in which they would contend that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of one Gowri Pandi alias Solai Bandiappan and the patta number allotted in respect of the property was patta No.161. On 14.11.1991, Gowri Pandi and his children had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of V.G. Rajidoss, V.G.P. Rajadoss and V.G.P. Babu Doss