IMPORTANT POINT
A suit for injunction is maintainable without a declaration of title when the title is not disputed, and survey boundaries are conclusive proof unless modified by a court.

JUDGMENT :

(C. Kumarappan, J.) :

By the order of My Lord The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice dated 25.06.2024, this Second Appeal was taken up for hearing before this Court.

2. The plaintiff was the sole appellant herein. After the demise of the sole appellant, appellants 2 to 4 who are the legal representatives of the sole appellant, were arrayed as the appellants 2 to 4. The defendants 1 and 2 were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2. After the demise of the first respondent/defendant, his legal heirs were arrayed as respondents 3 to 7 in the Second Appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.

4 (a). The brief facts which give rise to the instant Second Appeal is that the suit property was originally belongs to one A.R.Devasahayam Pillai and his wife Mrs.Mary Jane Devasahayam. They have sold the suit property in favour of Mrs.Kamala Prakash in the year 1949 by virtue of a Sale deed dated 20.04.1949. The said Kamala Prakash has got 4 sons by name P.V.Prabhu, Galaway Seelan (this plaintiff), Jeevan Prakash and Sugirdanesan. While so, the said Kamala Prakash died on 28.05.1988 leaving behind her sons as legal representatives to succeed her estate. This plaintiff submits that, since the defendants were interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff, on his behalf and on behalf of the other legal heirs of late Kamala Prakash, has instituted the instant suit against these defendants.

4 (b). According to this plaintiff, the suit property was resurveyed and a new survey number was assigned as 266/1A1A2A and its corresponding town Survey number is 42. It is the submission of the plaintiff that he and his brothers have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property. While so, the defendants, who are the utter strangers and in no way connected to the property, have attempted to interfere with their possession. Such interference necessitated this plaintiff to prefer a police complaint. Whereas, the police have advised the plaintiff to institute a suit, which necessitated this plaintiff to file the instant suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

5 (a). The said suit was resisted by the first defendant by contending that the instant suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the other legal heirs of late Kamala Prakash has not been arrayed as a party. This defendant has pleaded ignorance in respect of the purchase of the property by the plaintiff and the relevant survey number assigned to the suit properties. However, it is the contention of this defendant that he has purchased the property by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 13.01.1972 of an extent of 11 cents comprised in S.F.No.266/1A1A2A1. Whereas the property said to have been purchased by the plaintiff's mother is comprised in SF.No.266/1A1A2A. Therefore, this defendant submits that the plaintiff without knowing the factual position and without knowing the boundaries of his mother's property rushed to this Court with incomplete, inchoate and imperfect details.

5 (b). It is also the contention of this defendants that the description of the property mentioned in the plaint is misleading and incorrect and does not reflect the correct description as mentioned in the plaintiff's mother's Sale Deed dated 20.04.1949. It is also the contention of this defendant that the instant suit for bare injunction without seeking the relief of declaration is not maintainable. It is also the specific contention of this defendant that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property comprised in S.F.No.266/1A1A2A1. This defendant further submits that there is no cause of action to the plaintiff. This defendant further submits that according to the recent sub division, the survey number of the defendants' property is 266/9 and the patta number is 3179. Hence, the first defenda