In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determine if it raises a cloud over the plaintiff's title. The defendant, as an agreement holder, could not claim any interest in the property.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.40 of 1990 dated 25.03.1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Vridhachalam against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.567 of 1984 dated 24.01.1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.567 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, is the appellant herein.

2. O.S.No.567 of 1984 had been filed by the plaintiff, M.Natarajan against the defendant, Sengoda Gounder seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was punja lands in S.No.309/4 measuring 1.5 cents and in S.No.309/5 measuring 1.97 cents. The said suit was decreed with costs by the Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, by judgment dated 24.01.1990. The defendant, then filed A.S.No.40 of 1990 before the Sub Court, Virudhachalam. By judgment dated 25.03.1992, the appeal was allowed with costs and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside.

3. The plaintiff, M.Natarajan, then filed the present Second Appeal. Pending the Second Appeal, he died and his legal representatives had been brought on record as 2nd to 7th appellants. Pending the Second Appeal, the 4th appellant who had been brought on record also died, it was claimed that legal representatives were already on record.

4. The Second Appeal had been admitted on 08.02.1994 on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the reversing judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is sustainable in law as it had failed to frame the proper point for consideration? In other words, when the suit was one for permanent injunction, the point for consideration framed by the Lower Appellate Court was, whether the plaintiff became the owner of the property or not.”

O.S.No.567 of 1984 (District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi):

5. The plaintiff claimed that the suit schedule property belonged to him. He further claimed his father, D.K.Muthu had purchased the said suit properties on 31.03.1969 from Kannammal and from that date, he had been in possession. After the death of D.K.Muthu, his sister Angammal and nephew Duraisamy continued in possession. The plaintiff was residing elsewhere and consequently, it was claimed that Angammal and Duraisamy were in possession on his behalf. It was stated that the defendant has no manner or right interest or title over the suit schedule properties. The defendant has no right to interfere with possession. This necessitated instituting the suit for seeking permanent injunction to protect possession.

6. The defendant filed a written statement denying and disputing the contention of the plaintiff. It was claimed that the plaintiff did not have any sister called Angammal and that the said Duraisamy was employed in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. It was stated that the plaintiff was never in possession or enjoyment of the suit property either by himself or through anyone. The title of the plaintiff was disputed. It had been stated that in an earlier suit in O.S.No.324 of 1982 before the Sub Court, Erode, the plaintiff claimed that his sister Jaya was married to Duraisamy and that they were residing at Magudanchavadi in Salem District. It was claimed that the plaintiff had come to Court with false pleadings. It was stated that the suit properties had been taken over by the Government as waste land / Nila Ela Tharisu. The defendant claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the lands since 1980 and was cultivating the suit lands. It was stated that the plaintiff was not in actual possession of the suit property. It was stated that the suit for permanent injunction should be dismissed.

7. On the basis of the aforementioned pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:-

“i).Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the suit lands?

ii).Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit lands?