A suit for permanent injunction alone is not maintainable when there are rival claims to title, and parties should file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title with specific pleadings regarding possession.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 24th October 2002 passed in A.S. No. 7 of 2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet confirming the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court dated 29th December, 2000 passed in O.S. No. 206 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Walajah, Vellore District.

1. The defendant in O.S. No. 206 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate I, Walajah is the appellant herein.

2. The said suit had been filed by the respondent herein, who died pending the second appeal, and whose legal representatives had been brought on record as 2nd to 4th respondents for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant herein from interfering with peaceful possession of vacant lands measuring 2.86 acres in Dry S. No. 12/1B, in Thenkadapanthangal Village, Walajah, Arakkonam, in the then North Arcot District, now Vellore District.

3. The suit in O.S. No. 206 of 1995 was decreed by judgment dated 29.12.2002.

4. The defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No. 7 of 2001 before the Sub Court at Ranipet. The appeal suit was dismissed by judgment dated 24.10.2002.

5. The defendant then filed the present second appeal.

6. The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“1. The suit being one for permanent injunction whether the Court below is right in granting an injunction overlooking the evidence adduced in the case by the plaintiff?

2. Whether the suit itself is maintainable in the absence of a prayer claiming relief of declaration of title to the property?

3. When admittedly the plaintiff has purchased only from three of the shares out of four and the appellant has purchased from the other sharer whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of injunction for the entire extent of the property?”

O.S. No. 206 of 1995 (District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate-I Walajah):

7. The plaintiff, Subramani Achari, claimed that the property, vacant land in Dry S. No. 12/1B, measuring 2.86 acres in Thenkadapanthangal Village, Walajah, belonged to his father Ramachari, who had purchased it by registered sale deed dated 30.05.1960 and had been in enjoyment from that date. The property had been mortgaged and the plaintiff had redeemed the mortgage and continued to be in peaceful possession. The plaintiff complained that the defendant, Raman, a neighbour, interfered with peaceful possession, and therefore after issuing a pre-suit notice, instituted the suit for permanent injunction to protect possession.

8. In his written statement, the defendant, Raman, denied the plaintiff’s claim to title to the entire 2.86 acres. He stated that the property originally belonged to Chinnasamy Achari, and on his death devolved to his three sons, Munusamy, Thangavelu and Chinnadurai and daughter, Muniammal. He stated that Thangavelu sold his undivided 1/3rd share of 99 cents to one Subramani by sale deed dated 06.05.1982, who in turn sold the same to the defendant by sale deed dated 17.03.1986. The defendant claimed to be in possession of the said 99 cents as owner. He also stated that the suit for injunction without seeking the relief of declaration of title was not maintainable.

9. On the basis of the pleadings, the District Munsif framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the sale deed dated 30.05.1960 is true and valid?

2. Whether the claim that Chinnasami Achari purchased the suit property by sale deed dated 12.06.1943 is correct?

3. Whether the sale deeds dated 06.05.1982 and 17.03.1986 are true and valid?

4. Whether the contention that the plaintiff has no title over the suit property is correct? Whether the contention that it is the defendant who has title over the suit property is correct?

5. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought?

7. To what reliefs is the plaintiff entitled to?”

10. During th