IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of possession, lack of clean hands, and distinct cause of action in justifying the plaintiff's entitlement to seek injunction.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2013 and made in A.S. No. 66 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Arani, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 21.11.2008 and made in O.S. No. 381 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Polur.

1. The defendants in a suit for permanent injunction are the appellants in the above Second Appeal.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The first respondent in the above Second Appeal, as plaintiff, filed a suit in O.S. No. 381 of 1995 claiming that the suit property belonged to him absolutely and the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit against the first defendant in O.S. No. 409 of 1994 for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction. In the said suit, the Court had granted an injunction and the suit was pending.

4. According to the plaintiff, in order to tide over the defect in the defendants' claim over the suit properties, during the pendency of the suit in O.S. No. 409 of 1994, the first defendant has sold the property to the 5th defendant. According to the plaintiff, the sale is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Further according to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 9, joined together and attempted to kidnap the plaintiff, in order to compel him to withdraw the suit in O.S. No. 409 of 1994 and that the defendants are powerful people in the locality, with political background and therefore, the plaintiff sought for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also seeking for another permanent injunction to restrain the first defendant from creating any encumbrance over the suit property.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations and stating that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit property and even though an interim injunction was granted in the earlier suit, the subject matter of the suit has become infructuous. According to the first defendant, the sale in favour of the first defendant is valid and the allegations of collusion, kidnapping were stoutly denied.

6. The parties went for trial and the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants preferred an Appeal. The First Appellate Court, taking note of pendency of the earlier suit and death of the first defendant and the fact that the sale deed in Ex.B1 was registered only after filing of the suit in O.S. No. 409 of 1994 dated 07.11.1994, proceeded to confirm the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Courts below, the defendants 5 to 9 alone have chosen to prefer the present Second Appeal.

8. On 18.04.2017, the Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the Courts below are correct in upholding the case of the 1st respondent/plaintiff inspite of the fact that the earlier suit for comprehensive prayer in O.S. No. 409/1994 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Polur, Tiruvannamalai District, came to be dismissed as not pressed without obtaining leave?”

9. I have heard Mr. A. Bharathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.N. Pandian, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants revolved his arguments around the substantial question of law and would also take me through the pleadings in the suit as well as earlier suit and also the registered documents in Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 and Ex.B1, sale deed to fortify his contentions that the plaintiff has not established the factum of his being in possession as claimed in plaint and was therefore, not entitled to injunction.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants would also state that when a comprehensive suit had already been filed