The plaintiff must prove a valid title to the suit property and cannot file a suit for permanent injunction without a prayer for declaration of title. Unregistered documents cannot establish a valid title. Failure to cancel a registered sale deed implies acceptance of the said sale deed. The suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable in the absence of a valid title.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2022 made in A.S.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Erode confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2019 made in O.S.No.268 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Erode.)

1. Plaintiff, who lost his case before both the courts below in respect of permanent injunction sought for, has preferred the present Second Appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff is as under:-

i) The suit property originally belonged to the first defendant, which, he had agreed to sell to the plaintiff and thereupon executed a general power of attorney on 4.7.2000 on receipt of entire sale consideration and also executed a declaration on the same day affirming the factum of receipt of entire sale consideration, agreement to sell the property to the plaintiff and also undertaking that he would not cancel the general power of attorney.

ii) On 4.7.2000 itself, the plaintiff was handed over possession of the suit property and from then onwards, the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

iii) Second defendant is the brother of the plaintiff and third defendant is his wife. Having developed enmity with the plaintiff, the second defendant used to give trouble to the plaintiff. Colluding with one Rajasekaran and Easwaran, the second defendant attempted to evict the plaintiff from the suit property. In order to thwart such an attempt, the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.605 of 2005 and obtained a decree. The Appeal preferred by the defendants therein viz., A.S.No.11 of 2007 also came to be dismissed on 24.10.2008.

iv) Subsequently, the second defendant, with the intention to evict the plaintiff from the suit property, filed a suit in O.S.No.97 of 2013, by fabricating some documents, claiming partition of the suit property against the plaintiff and one Dhanalakshmi, which also came to be dismissed by the II Additional Sub Court, Erode on 21.7.2015.

v) Further, the second defendant, by colluding with the first defendant, fabricated documents in favour of his wife, the third defendant and indulged into illegal activities to evict the plaintiff from the suit property and thereby, the plaintiff had issued notice to defendants 1 and 3 on 10.12.2007, however, there was no reply for the same.

vi) Once again, the defendants had raised some dispute and thereupon, the plaintiff had issued notice on 15.2.2011. Whileso, having failed in his suit in O.S.No.97 of 2013, the second defendant alongwith his henchmen picked up a quarrel with the plaintiff on 2.5.2016 and on pacification by the neighbours of the plaintiff, quit the place by wielding threat that they would acquire possession of the suit property by evicting the plaintiff.

vii) Aggrieved against the action of the defendants, the plaintiff had issued notice on 24.5.2016 and even thereupon, the second defendant, alongwith defendants 1 and 3 and their henchmen, visited the suit property and picked up quarrel with the plaintiff and on assembling of neighbours, they had quit the place.

viii) From the encumbrance certificates in respect of the suit property, it was found out that the second defendant had obtained a power of attorney from the first defendant and fabricated a sale deed dated 31.3.2005 in favour of his wife, the third defendant. The said fabricated sale deed was not at all given effect to and the third defendant had no means to purchase the suit property. The said sale deed was created by the defendants only to defeat the plaintiff''s rights over the suit property and it is not valid and binding on the plaintiff.

ix) The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 15 years from 4.7.2000. The defendants have not taken any legal steps to evict the plain