Permanent injunction cannot be granted without establishing title or possession; prior decrees do not confer title if not adjudicated.

JUDGMENT

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated October 14, 2019 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2019 on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated January 22, 2019 passed in O.S.No.133 of 2015 on the file of District Munsif Court at Katpadi.

S.A.No.114 of 2020

This Second Appeal is directed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, against the Judgment and Decree dated October 14, 2019 passed in A.S.No.31 of 2019 on the file of ‘Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore’ ['First Appellate Court' for short], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated January 22, 2018 passed in O.S.No. 133 of 2015 on the file of ‘District Munsif Court at Katpadi’ ['Trial Court' for short] was confirmed.

2. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be denoted as per their array in the Original Suit.

Plaintiffs’ Case in Brief:

3. In the Plaint, it is averred that the plaintiffs’ father - Krishnasamy originally owned and possessed a property measuring 94 Cents in Survey No.132/1 of Chennangkuppam Village, Katpadi Taluk and another property measuring 37 Cents in Survey No.159 of P.K.Puram (Pazhaya Krishnapuram) Village, Katpadi Taluk. Krishnasamy (plaintiffs’ father) and his brother - Rajagopal, had no disputes regarding these properties until Rajagopal’s death.

3.1. After Rajagopal’s passing, his widow - Rukkumani, disputed Krishnasamy’s title over the aforesaid properties and therefore, Krishnasamy filed a Suit in O.S.No.339 of 1982 for declaration and injunction against Rukkumani and one Ramanujam before the District Munsif Court, Vellore which was later transferred to the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham and renumbered as O.S.No.753 of 1982. He obtained a decree in his favour on April 30, 1983. Meanwhile, Rukkumani filed a Suit seeking declaration and injunction in O.S.No.833 of 1991 with respect to the same properties, which was dismissed as abated on March 2, 2001.

3.2. The property measuring 94 Cents in Survey No.132/1 was later subdivided into Survey Nos.132/1A and 132/1B consisting of 52 Cents and 42 Cents respectively. Inadvertently, Survey No. 132/1B was omitted by the revenue officials in Patta No.344 standing in Krishnasamy’s name. Hence, Krishnasamy submitted an application, and the revenue department corrected this mistake on September 19, 1999 vide their Order dated August 18, 1989. Thereafter, Krishnasamy sold Survey No.132/1A to third parties, who currently possess and enjoy it without dispute. He retained Survey No. 132/1B, which constitutes the Suit Property herein, until his death, after which his heirs viz., the plaintiffs, continued to be in possession and enjoyment thereof.

3.3. Further averred that, Rajagopal had executed a registered Settlement Deed in favour of his wife - Rukkumani on March 24, 1980 in respect of the properties mentioned in Paragraph No.3 of this Judgment, and the same is not valid as Rajagopal had no title or right over the same. After Rukkumani’s death, her heirs - Kamalammal, Babyammal, Kuppusamy, and Sekar sold the Suit Property to one Immanuvel by way of registered Sale Deed on January 21, 2008. Revenue Records were transferred to Immanuvel’s name without notice or inquiry. Immanuvel died unmarried. Thereafter, despite plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment, the defendants, who are the said Immanuvel’s siblings, attempted to encroach upon the Suit Property without any legitimate right or title. Hence, the Suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

Defendants’ Case in Brief:

4. The defendants were set ex-parte before the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. No Written Statement was filed on their side.

Trial Court:

5. At Trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the Plaintiff No.1 was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.9 were marked. On the side of the defendants, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

5.1. Upon hearing the plaintiffs’ side and considering