A permanent injunction can be granted against a co-owner if the plaintiffs establish their possession and enjoyment of the property, despite the defendant's claims.

JUDGMENT :

R. Sakthivel, J.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated March 8, 2019 passed in A.S.No.80 of 2018 by the 'II Additional District Court, Chidambaram' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court'] whereby the Judgment and Decree dated June 25, 2014 passed in O.S.No.122 of 2006 by the 'District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kattumannarkoil' [henceforth 'Trial Court'] was confirmed as well as against the Order dated March 8, 2019 passed in I.A.No.25 of 2019 in A.S.No.80 of 2018.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

Plaintiffs' case

3. The Suit Property is an extent of 5 Cents comprised in Old S.No.23 / New S.No.181/4. It belonged to one Perumal and his brother -Amirthalingam, who enjoyed it jointly as joint family members. Said Amirthalingam passed away in 1984 leaving behind the plaintiffs and one Stalin, as his legal-heirs. Said Stalin went elsewhere without intimation and his whereabouts were not known. In 1993, a family arrangement was made between the plaintiffs and the said Perumal, in which the western side 2 ½ Cents were allotted to Perumal and the eastern side 2 ½ Cents were allotted to the plaintiffs, and the same was reduced into writing and attested by the village people. From the date of allotment, the plaintiffs alone have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the eastern 2½ cents i.e., the Suit Property and Patta No.523 in respect of the total 5 Cents was also issued jointly in the name of the said Perumal and the said Stalin. The plaintiffs have been assessed with house tax and paying the same in respect of the house in the Suit Property. In 2005, due to flood, the house property became dilapidated and as such the plaintiffs were residing in the house opposite to the Suit Property.

3.1. Said Perumal duly conveyed the western portion allotted to him to one Selvaraj, son of Murugesan, who constructed a R.C.C. building and residing therein. The defendant owns a property on the west of the western side portion allotted to said Perumal. The defendant, who failed in his attempt to purchase the western portion allotted to the Perumal, in order to trouble the said Selvaraj, requested the plaintiffs to convey the Suit Property in his favour. As the plaintiffs rejected the same, the defendant proclaimed the he purchased the Suit Property from one Vaithiyalingam @ Vaithiyanathan, who has no right or interest over the Suit Property and never possessed and enjoyed the Suit Property. Any document or conveyance by the said Vaithiyalingam in respect of Suit Property would be null and void. The plaintiffs also prescribed title over the Suit Property by way of adverse possession. The defendant made attempts to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over Suit Property and as such the plaintiffs filed this Suit against the defendant for permanent injunction.

Defendant's case

4. The defendant resisted the Suit by stating that the defendant owned a property in R.S.No.181/3 and to its east, Perumal had 2½ cents, and immediately to the east of Perumal’s 2 ½ Cents, Vaithiyalingam, son of Govindhasamy, owned 2½ cents in Rs.No.181/4 i.e., Suit Property. Thus, the Suit Property originally belonged to Vaithiyalingam, and he was in possession and enjoyment of it for a long time. He then conveyed the Suit Property to the defendant under a registered Sale Deed dated April 27, 2006 for a valid consideration and since then, defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the Suit Property as absolute owner.

4.1. Further stated that the so called 1993 family arrangement is nothing but a cock and bull story, and the said document is a concocted and forged one, and there was no house in the Suit Property, and neither plaintiffs nor Perumal nor Amirthalingam was in possession at any time, much less on the date of filing of Suit and as such the Suit is not maintainable.

4.2. Further that that the pla