A suit for injunction is maintainable to protect settled possession against private interference, even without a prayer for title, especially when the plaintiff's possession is acknowledged.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem, in A.S. No. 61 of 2012 dated 29.11.2013, whereby the judgment of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Salem, in O.S. No. 800 of 2007 dated 16.03.2012 was reversed.

2. In this Second Appeal, the appellants are the defendants and the respondents are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they stood before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed the suit for bare injunction in respect of two items of property comprised in S. No. 79/4 measuring 8.5 cents and S. No. 79/3A measuring 23.5 cents. In respect of the property comprised in S. No. 79/3A, there is no dispute. The defendants themselves admitted that it is patta land belonging to the plaintiff and, accordingly, the suit was decreed by the Trial Court in respect of this property.

4. The dispute pertains only to the land comprised in S. No. 79/4. According to the plaintiff, this is Gramanatham land. Patta stands in his name and he has been in possession of the property for more than 12 years after paying necessary taxes to the Government, and all revenue records also stand in his name. He contended that, except the Government, no other person is entitled to question his title. Alleging that the defendants disturbed his possession, he filed the suit.

5. On the defendants’ side, the first defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the other defendants. The defendants admitted that the land in dispute is Gramanatham, but disputed the exclusive possession of the plaintiff. They contended that the land is communal land belonging to the Adidravidar community. They stated that members of the said community have been using the well found in the land for performing last rituals of the dead and for taking bath. They further claimed that, during festival seasons, people assemble there and use the well water. An electric pumpset had been erected in the land by the Panchayat and an electric motor had been installed. Electricity consumption charges were being paid by the Panchayat. Therefore, they contended that the plaintiff had no title to the disputed land and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit in respect of the land in S. No. 79/4 holding that the plaintiff had not proved his exclusive possession of the disputed property and had failed to establish the basis on which his name was included in the revenue records.

7. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff had proved his possession and reversed the Trial Court judgment and granted permanent injunction against the defendants.

8. In the decision in Vishwas Footwear Company Ltd. v. The District Collector and Others , W.A. No. 1275 of 2006 dated 28.07.2011 (MANU/TN/3235/2011), this Court held that when a party approaches the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking cancellation of patta, the RDO has no authority to adjudicate title and must instead direct the party to approach the civil court for appropriate declaratory relief. In the present case, it was contended that, based on the representation of DW1, the patta standing in the name of the plaintiff was cancelled without notice and without directing DW1 to approach the civil court. Such cancellation, effected during the pendency of t