A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable when a genuine dispute on title arises. The proper remedy is a comprehensive suit for declaration, reaffirming the principle that possession follows title.

JUDGMENT :

G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.

1. The un-successful plaintiff has preferred the above appeal. The Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 27.11.2017 passed in A.S.No.35 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 28.02.2013 passed in O.S.No.441 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the litigative status before the trial Court.

Case of the plaintiff:

3. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed, dated 30.08.2001 in Ex-A1 from one Thangaraja son of Kandhasamy represented by his power holder, Antony. Pursuant to his purchase, revenue records were mutated in his name and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant, who is having no right over the suit property and who is having property adjacent to the suit schedule property of the plaintiff, had attempted several times to encroach into the suit property. The suit property is surrounded by well bounded boundaries in which, the plaintiff is in enjoyment. While so, on 15.07.2005, the defendant attempted to destroy the boundary line to encroach upon the plaintiff's property, which was thwarted by the plaintiff by his timely intervention. On the complaint given by the plaintiff, the Police had also enquired into and warned the defendant. However, in spite of the same, again on 16.07.2005, the defendant along with his men attempted to enter into the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff had come up with the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction.

Case of the defendant:

4. The defendant resisted the suit categorically denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. It is the specific contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has fabricated and created documents to create a title. It is the categorical contention of the defendant that he is the absolute owner and is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property based on the sale deed dated 13.04.2005 in Ex.B5, executed in his favour and the subsequent patta issued.

5. According to the defendant, a larger extent of the property situated in old S.No.1860 corresponding to Re.Survey.No. M4-12/8 of Vadiveeswaram Village, originally belonged to one Saravana Panicker. He became the absolute owner through purchase and patta has been issued in his name. As early as in the year 1938, during his life time, Saravana Panicker had executed a gift deed in Ex-B24 in Doc.No.2298/1113M.E., on the file of the Sub Registrar, Nagercoil in favour of his daughter, Challemmai. In the gift deed, Saravana Panicker had retained a life time interest in his favour and in favour of his wife, Tmt.Valliammai. As such, pursuant to their death, Chellammai became the absolute owner of the property in old S.No.1860 measuring to an extent of 1.67 acres on the northern side. Chellammai divided the property into various plots by providing 25 links pathway in the centre portion and 8 links pathway on the southern side. From out of which, Chellammai sold Plot No.4 from west to eastern side in the year 1966 in favour of one Ayyappan Pillai; Plot No.1 was sold to one Dr.A.D.Ramamoorthy and Plot Nos.2 and 3 had been sold to one Dharmaraj Nadar in the year 1966; and Plot No.5 was sold to one Srikandan Nair in t