Possession follows title; a person cannot seek injunction against the true owner even if in possession.

JUDGMENT :

The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below has filed the present second appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.198/2005 before the District Munsif, Jayankondam, seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.

4. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :

The suit property originally belonged to one Perumal Padayachi, father of the plaintiff. Perumal Padaiyachi during his life time executed a Will, dated 20.11.1980 (Ex.A20) bequeathing the suit property in favour of his daughter (the plaintiff). He also created a life estate in favour of his wife Saroja Ammal. However, Saroja Ammal (mother of the plaintiff), the plaintiff and her daughter Kalaiselvi executed a Sale deed, dated 24.06.2003 (Ex.B1) in favour of one Viswanadhan (first defendant) as a security for the loan obtained by the plaintiff. Thus it is a sham and nominal document and there was no consideration for the same. The plaintiff is also in possession and enjoyment of the suit property even after the execution of the sale deed, dated 24.06.2003 (Ex.B1). The plaintiff is now ready to repay the loan amount. Since the defendants 1 and 2 directed the plaintiff to vacate the suit property, she is forced file the present suit.

5. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following grounds:

i. All the allegations contained in the plaint are false.

ii. The plaintiff along with her mother and daughter executed a registered sale deed, dated 24.06.2003 (Ex.B1) in favour of the first defendant. Ever since the date of purchase, the first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and it is false to contend that the plaintiff or her mother Saroja Ammal did not receive any sale consideration.

iii.The suit property absolutely belonged to the first defendant and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the suit property. Hence the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?

ii. Whether the Court fee has been paid properly?

iii. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

7. In the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself and three other witnesses and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A24. The first defendant examined himself and two other witnesses and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.

8. After full contest, the learned Trial Court Judge, vide his decree and judgment dated 26.02.2014, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the following grounds:

i. The plaintiff along with her mother Saroja Ammal and her daughter Kalaiselvi executed a registered sale deed, dated 27.08.1998 (Ex.A15) in favour of one Kadhiresan.

ii. In the said sale deed, there is a mention about the Will dated 20.11.1980, (Ex.A20) executed by Perumal Padaiyachi.

iii.Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased the said property through a registered sale deed dated 10.05.2002 (Ex.A16) from the said Kadhiresan. Thus the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit property.

iv. The plaintiff had subsequently executed a registered sale deed, dated 24.06.2003 (Ex.B1) in favour of the first defendant.

v. Though it is contended by the plaintiff that the sale deed, dated 24.06.2003 (Ex.B1) was executed only as a security for the loan obtained by her, the same has not been established by her.

vi. The plaintiff though had adduced documentary evidence such as tax receipts, electricity consumption charges (Ex.A1 to Ex.A11) to show that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, she cannot claim any permanent injunction against the lawful owner.

vii.The suit property has also been sold by the first defendant to