A permanent injunction suit is not maintainable without a prior declaration of title when there is a dispute regarding ownership.

JUDGMENT :

The defendant in a suit for permanent injunction has preferred the present second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of both the Courts below.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.As per plaint averments, the plaintiff claimed title to the suit schedule properties of 1 acre and 93 cents in Survey No.44/1 on the basis Exs.A1 to A6 sale deeds. According to the plaintiff, the total extent of land covered under Exs.A1 to A6 is 2 acres. In the said 2 acres, patta was granted in favour of the plaintiff temple. 7 cents was acquired by the Government for formation of road. Excluding 7 cents, 1 acre and 93 cents is in possession of the plaintiff temple for which patta has been issued in Patta No.1646. The plaintiff is in possession for over 70 years. The defendant has neither title nor possession over the suit schedule properties. On 19.04.1997, the defendant attempted to disturb the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.

3.The defendant had filed a written statement disputing the title of the plaintiff with regard to 33 cents out of 1.93 acres. According to the defendant, 33 cents belongs to the defendant's family and they are in enjoyment over the same for more than 100 years. The defendant had further contended that for the said 33 cents, a joint patta has been issued in Patta No. 990 and the defendant's family have acquired title by adverse possession.

4.According to the defendant, 1.93 acres has been subdivided into Survey No.44/1 for which no notice was issued to the defendant. The defendant had further contended that Patta No.990 stands in the name of their eldest family member namely Kumaraguru. He had further stated that the plaintiff is not in possession of 33 cents. The temple land is used as Kalam. The villagers are using 33 cents of the defendant to reach the Kalam and the defendant had not raised any objection for the same. When the plaintiff requested the defendant to alienate 33 cents in favour of the plaintiff and when the defendant objected for the same, the present dispute has arisen. The plaintiff had erroneously included 33 cents of the defendant in their Patta by way of erroneous subdivision and now claiming possession. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5.An Additional written statement was filed by the defendant contending that Mr.Sendurpandi cannot be considered to be Haqdar of the temple and hence, he is not competent to file the suit. He further contended that the temple can be represented only by the Board of Trustees and non-impleading of the Board of Trustees would be fatal to the suit. The defendant had further contended that 35 cents of land which lies on the norther portion of the suit schedule properties abutting east-west road fall in Jameen Survey No.730 and it belongs to the joint family of the defendant. Originally the father of the defendant was given Jameen Patta in Patta No.576 for the disputed 35 cents of punja lands and certain other lands. Subsequently, during re-settlement proceedings, the disputed 35 cents in old Jameen Survey No. 730 claimed by the defendant supra and certain adjacent lands measuring 9.06 acres were comprised in Survey No.44 and Patta No.990 was issued in favour 32 persons. As the elder member of the defendant's family, by name Kumara Kuruparan was included in the joint Patta as 9^th Patadar.

6.The defendant further contended that 35 cents of land belongs to the joint family of the defendant and his four brothers. Without impleading the other three brothers, the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has purposely omitted to correlate of the Jameen Survey Number as per various doc