A suit for bare injunction is not maintainable when the title of the property is disputed, and the plaintiff's failure to produce original documents affects the credibility of his claim.

JUDGMENT :

S.Srimathy, J.

The present second appeal is preferred by the defendant against the judgment and decree, dated 17.12.2012, passed in A.S.No.225 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 28.10.2011, passed in O.S.No.532 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.

2. The plaintiff in the suit is the 1^st respondent herein and the defendant in the suit are the appellant herein. The defendant / 1^st respondent herein died and his legal heirs are impleaded as respondents 2 to 5 herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants, as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The suit is filed for bare injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the property.

4. The brief facts as stated in the plaint is that originally the entire property belongs to one Ramasamy Chettiar, after his demise his son Balakrishnan inherited the property. The properties consist of seven parts and the plaintiff, plaintiff’s wife and son had purchased the property through six sale deeds dated 01.09.1986 from the said Balakrishnan. Hence the plaintiff is the owner of the property through the sale deed which is situated on the western side end in T.S.Nos.284/1 and 282/2 admeasuring 72 feet East-West on North and 72 feet on East-West on South and 21 feet North-South on East and 14.6 feet North-South on West. The defendant had purchased the property in S.No.274/1. The suit property is situated on the western end in T.F.Nos.284/1 and 284/2. And eastern end of the defendant's property. Two years before, the defendant put up windows on the eastern side wall of her house and the plaintiff objected for putting up windows facing the suit property. However, based on advice by the common people the defendant agreed that if the plaintiff intended to put up any construction in the area, then the defendant would remove the same, hence the plaintiff had not taken any action. On 28.04.2007, when the plaintiff started to construct a building in the portion, the defendant threw stones from her house and she threatened the plaintiff's workers by showing weapons like aruval and stick and she prevented the plaintiff's workers from doing the construction work. Thereafter, the defendant started throwing waste materials, human excrete on the suit property and thereby, the defendant had obstructed the plaintiff's enjoyment and prevented the construction work. On 04.05.2007, the defendant tried to encroach the suit property with the man power and the plaintiff resisted her encroachment. However, the defendant taking advantage of vacation holidays of the Court, on 06.05.2007, threatened the plaintiff and she tried to assault him and the same was resisted by the plaintiff with the help of his son and neighbours. The defendant's violent entry and threat continued day-by-day. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff.

5. The defendant denied all the allegations and averments stated in the plaint and stated that an extent of 11 feet vacant site on the eastern side next to the eastern side wall of the defendant's house is available and 6 feet length in the vacant site absolutely belongs to the defendant. The plaintiff has wrongly filed the rough sketch and shown the entire 11 feet as suit property which is wrong. The description of the suit property in the schedule is shown as soil wall with tin sheeted house is wrong and no such property existed as described in the suit property. The defendant's mother purchased the house with 6 feet on the eastern side of the wall in the year 1957 itself and she gifted the house to the defendant in the year 1982. Hence, the defendant and her mother were enjoying the 6 feet on the eastern side of her house. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the remaining portion of the vacant site after detecting the defendant's 6 feet in the suit property. The defendant further states that since