A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when the plaintiff's title to the property is in dispute or under a cloud. The grant of patta and reliance on a will must establish valid title, and attempts to indirectly establish title through a suit for injunction may be impermissible.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.1997 made in A.S.No.37 & 57 of 1992 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur preferred against O.S.No.557 of 1985 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Ponneri.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.557/1985 on the file of the District Munsiff Court at Ponneri is the appellant herein. Pending the appeal, he died and his legal representatives had been brought on record as 1st and 2nd appellants.

2. The suit in O.S.No.557/1985 had been filed by the plaintiff against Arulmigu Pidari Uchi Amarthalamman Koil represented by its trustee and against Annapathina Subbulu and Nellore Kondaiah seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff of the suit property in any manner either by collecting the rent or in any other manner and for costs for the suit.

3. The suit schedule property was land measuring about 7 acres known as Mattu Manthai in Sy.No.149, Sathankadu Village, Madhavaram firka, Saidapet Taluk, Thiruvottiyur District.

4. By judgment dated 16.04.1992, the District Munsiff, Ponneri, decreed the suit.

5. Challenging such judgment and decree, the 1st defendant / Arulmighu Pidari Uchi Amarthalamman Koil, filed A.S.No.57 of 1992 and the 2nd and the 3rd defendants / Annapathini Subbulu and Nellore Kondiah filed A.S.No.37 of 1992, both before the Sub Court at Subordinate Judge, Thiruvallur.

6. By common judgment dated 29.01.1997, both the Appeal Suits were allowed and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.557 of 1985 was set aside.

7. The plaintiff then filed the present Second Appeal.

8. The Second Appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law;

"a) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge erred in law in holding that the suit by the plaintiff is not maintainable overlooking the fact that in the partition between him and his mother the suit property was allocated to his share and that in any event the plaintiff as a co-owner is entitled to maintain the suit for injunction against trespasser?

b) Whether the 1st defendant can agitate in the civil Court that it has title to the suit property, notwithstanding the grant of patta by the settlement authorities under Minor Inams Abolition Act to the plaintiff as confirmed by the Inams Tribunal and the Special Appellate Tribunal? And

c) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge erred in relying on Ex.B.4 Will which has not been duly proved and holding the alienation in favour of the plaintiff is not valid, which is wholly outside the purview of the present suit?"

9. The appellant also filed C.M.P.Nos.9327 of 2022 and 11470 of 2022, both under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., seeking to produce three additional documents and two additional documents respectively.

O.S.No.557 of 1985 (District Munsiff Court, Ponneri):-

10. The plaintiff claimed that suit property had been purchased by his grand father Shanmuga Gramani by a sale deed dated 08.08.1944. Subsequently, the father of the plaintiff viz., Gopal was allotted the property and on his death, the property devolved to the mother of the plaintiff and to the plaintiff. They entered into a partition and the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff. He further claimed that the settlement Tahsildar granted patta to the suit property. An appeal was filed before the Sub Court / Tribunal at Chengalpet which was dismissed. A further appeal was filed before the High Court. It also suffered an order of dismissal. The 1st defendant had filed a suit for injunction restraining the plaintiff from alienating the property and that suit was also dismissed. It was stated that the suit property was used as Cattle shandy and the 2nd and 3rd defendants were in possession of a small portion of the property. Since, the plaintiff, to assert title commenced collection of rent, and since the same was objected by the defendants, the suit had been filed seeki