A prior ruling on permanent injunction does not prevent a subsequent suit for title or possession if the causes of action are distinct and the question of title was not conclusively decided.

JUDGMENT :

(M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.)

The unsuccessful plaintiffs have preferred the first appeal against the order passed in IA.No.108 of 2017 in OS.No.144 of 2016 for rejection of the plaint in OS.No.144 of 2016. The parties herein are referred to according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. The plaintiffs - S.Premanand, K.Harimoorthy & V.Suresh Kumar filed the suit in OS.No.144 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee against the defendants viz., Mr.V.Muthu @ V.Veiyil Muthu and Mrs.Kanthamari. The suit has been filed for declaration of plaintiff's title to the suit property and for recovery of vacant possession of the suit property after ejecting the defendants there from and after removing the superstructure put up by them over the suit property.

3. The brief case of the plaintiffs is as follows :-

The suit property was originally owned and possessed by the plaintiff's vendor / Saravanan. The said Saravanan has appointed one J.Jebasingh as his Power of Attorney agent, as per the power of attorney deed dated 18.09.1996. The plaintiffs are individually purchased the undivided 1/3^rd share of the suit property under three separate registered sale deeds dated 11.10.2000.

3(i)The first defendant/V.Muthu @ Veiyil Muthu filed the suit in Os.No.311 of 2006 against the power of attorney agent/J.Jebasingh and 4 others seeking for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs/V.Suresh Kumar and Harimoorthy have filed a suit in OS.No.389 of 2006 against the first defendant/V.Muthu @ Veiyil Muthu and one Devaraj on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee. Both the suits were tried together and suit in OS.No.311 of 2006 was decreed in favour of the first defendant/V.Muthu @ Veiyil Muthu and the suit in OS.No.389 of 2006 was dismissed by the Principal District Munsif, Poonamalee on 29.11.2012. The first defendant/V.Muhtu @ Veiyil Muthu, after disposal of the suit had executed a registered deed of settlement dated 28.02.2013 in favour of the 2^nd defendant/Kanthamari. The first defendant is claiming title by virtue of the sale deed alleged to have been executed by E.V.Perumalsamy Reddy through power of agent/Devaraj.

3(ii) The first defendant/V.Muthu @ Veiyil Muthu managed to obtain patta, pursuant to the sale deed. The plaintiffs alone were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, but the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamalee took a different view and found that the first defendant/V.Muthu is in possession and enjoyment of the property and therefore decreed the suit in his favour. Since, there is a finding by the Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee that the first defendant/Muthu @ Veiyil Muthu is in possession of the suit property and since the first defendant has settled the suit property in favour of the 2^nd defendant/Kanthamani, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit seeking declara