A party can seek a permanent injunction without needing to declare title if there is no cloud over title and possession can be proved, even when facing encroachment claims.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

These Second Appeals have been preferred as against the Common Judgment and Decrees passed by the Sub Judge, Sathyamangalam in A.S.Nos.31 and 32 of 2014 dated 15.07.2015.

2. The appellant in both the Second Appeals has filed a suit in O.S.No.134 of 2011 as against the respondent in S.A.No.975 of 2015 and respondents 1 to 4 in S.A.No.974 of 2015 for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and the respondent in S.A.No.975 of 2015 and 1^st respondent in S.A.No.974 of 2015 has filed the suit against the appellant herein before the trial court in O.S.No.281 of 2011 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property therein. The trial court has decreed the suit filed by the appellant [O.S.No.134 of 2011] and dismissed the suit filed by the 1^st respondent [O.S.No.281 of 2011] herein on 27.08.2013. Aggrieved by the common judgment and decree, the 1^st respondent in S.A.No.974 of 2015 and respondent in S.A.No.975 of 2015 herein has preferred the first appeals before the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam in A.S.No.31 and 32 of 2014. The First Appellate Court reversed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court and allowed both the appeals and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed and the suit filed by the 1^st respondent in these appeals was decreed. Aggrieved by the said common judgment and decrees, the present Second Appeals have been preferred by the appellant.

3. The brief facts of the case in O.S.No.134 of 2011 are as follows:-

The suit item nos.1 and 2 of the properties were purchased by the appellant / plaintiff through sale deeds dated 25.08.2000 and 02.03.2001 respectively. The respondents 1 and 2 / defendants 1 and 2 are husband and wife having their property on the northern side of the suit property. The appellant / plaintiff had constructed a house over the suit property after obtaining proper permission from the local authorities and plan approval from Executive Officer, Puliampatty Town Panchayat as per approval dated 16.03.2001. After construction of the house in the suit property, the appellant / plaintiff obtained electricity service connection and water tap service connection for the said house and the appellant / plaintiff and her family are residing in the said house and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants 1& 2/ respondents 1 &2 in S.A.No.974 of 2015 having property on the northern side of the suit property, one month ago, when the defendants attempted to construct the compound wall in the suit property, the same was thwarted by the plaintiff and the plaintiff demanded the defendants to measure the property as per the sale deeds, but the defendants did not agree for the same, while so, on 17.04.2011, when the plaintiff and her family were in out of station to attend relative’s family function, the respondents 1 and 2 / defendants 1 and 2 illegally tried to enter into the suit property and put up illegal construction and the same was thwarted by the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 are politically influential persons and would do anything and they are attempting to encroach the property and therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction.

4. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.134 of 2011 are as follows:-

The averments made in the plaint that the properties were purchased by the plaintiff and obtained permission for construction and constructed a house and when she was out of station, the defendants 1 and 2 attempted to encroach t