In a property injunction suit, a plaintiff must demonstrate current possession, irrespective of competing title claims, to obtain relief.

JUDGMENT :

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

The above second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2022 made in A.S.No.7 of 2018 on the file of District Judge at the Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2018 made in O.S.No. 37 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Coonoor, Nilgiris.

2.The respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the above suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit property.

3.According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to the husband of the plaintiff by virtue of an oral partition that took place between his family members in the year 1992 and thereafter, he executed the registered settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff on 12.06.2007 and from then onwards the plaintiff alone was in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any interference. The revenue records also stands in the name of the plaintiff. While so, during the 1^st week of June 2013 the defendants and his brother K.B.Nanjan attempted to disturb the possession of the plaintiff in the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice on 12.06.2013 to the defendant, but the defendant failed to reply to the said notice. On 24.03.2014, the defendants came to the suit property, threatened the plaintiff with dire consequence and also threatened to take forcible possession of the suit property which made the plaintiff lodge a complaint against the defendant. Hence, on the advice of the police, the plaintiff filed the above suit along with an interim application seeking for an order of ad interim injunction against the 1^st defendant in which an exparte interim injunction was granted on 25.02.2015. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant stating that the suit property was originally allotted to the plaintiff's father-in-law, late Meena Bellan, during his lifetime through an oral partition between him and his son and he was alone in possession and enjoyment of the said property till his demise on 24.10.1991. It is further stated that the suit property originally belongs to one Smt.Masiammal, wife of Bada Bellan and Mathiyammal, Wife of Pila Nanjan, under registered documents. The said Mathiyammal executed a Will in favour of one K.B.Bhojan son of Meena Bellan, as per the oral partition the said Meena Bellan was in possession of the suit property till his life time. After his demise, his sons agreed to allot the suit property to their sister Lakshmi wife of Halan. The said Lakshmi was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till 2000. Thereafter, the suit property was kept as common property by the legal heirs of Meena Bellan. The suit property was never allotted to the plaintiff's husband in the oral partition which took place in the year 1992. Hence, he had no right to execute the settlement deed in favour of his wife and mere registration of the gift deed do not confer any valid title on the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the settlement deed was not acted upon and the same is not binding on the defendants. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Moreover, the defendants' brother K.B.Bojan is a necessary party in the suit. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joiner of necessary party. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.The Trial Court upon considering the materials on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff against which the defendants preferred the appeal suit in A.S.No.7 of 2018 before the District Judge, Nilgiris, Udagamandalam. The first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal suit confi