Court affirmed that unregistered documents cannot establish property title, emphasizing the necessity of valid title proof for injunction claims.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. These second appeals have been preferred as against the common judgments and decrees dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Sub Court, Namakkal in A.S.Nos.59 & 60/2013. The appeal in A.S.No.59/2013 has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff as against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.505/2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal, dated 17.04.2013.

2. The appeal in A.S.No.60/2013 has been preferred by the defendants as against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.155/2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal, dated 17.04.2013. Before the Trial Court the plaintiff in O.S.No.505/2010 has filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title of the property and for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.155/2008 have filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property therein. Both the suits were tried together and common judgment was passed and the suit in O.S.No.155/2008 was decreed by granting permanent injunction and the suit in O.S.No.505/2010 was dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeals would also be indicated.

4. The brief averments of the plaint in O.S.No.155/2008 are as follows :

4.1. The first item of the suit property is a joint family property of the plaintiff and his brother Thiagarajan. The first item of the suit property was allotted through O.S.No.235/1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Namakkal. The brother of the plaintiff namely, Thiagarajan borrowed money and thereby, the properties were brought for auction through Court and one Natesan purchased the property through Court auction and thereafter, the first defendant purchased the property from the legal heirs of the said Natesan. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.235/1989 for partition. As per the suit, 4/9th share was allotted to the plaintiff and 1/9th share was allotted to his sister Rajamani, the first defendant has been allotted 4/9 share through decree dated 07.11.1990. Thereafter, the first defendant filed final decree application in I.A.No.163/1991 and obtained separate possession. As per the compromise memo, ‘A’ plan was prepared and ‘A’ schedule property to an extent of 1.95 cents, was allotted to the plaintiff and her sister and the first defendant was allotted ‘B’ schedule property to an extent of 1.56 cents, 0.29 cents is the common cart track and well allotted for both the parties as common.

4.2. The second item of the suit property is Village Natham in S.No.370/A1. The said property along with the house jointly belonged to the plaintiff and his brother Thiagarajan and joint patta also granted in their favour. The brother of the plaintiff borrowed money and the creditor filed the suit in O.S.No.479/1989 and the said property was brought for auction through REP 451/1991 and one Veerappa Chettiyar purchased through court auction on 09.06.1993 and thereafter the said Veerappa Chettiyar filed the suit in O.S.No.222/1994 for partition and in that partition suit, there was a compromise between the parties and the entire property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Therefore, the property allotted to the plaintiff and his sister, the first item along with second item have been converted into plots. There was electricity service connection in S.C.No.94 and 5 H.P. electric motor was purchased through deed dated 09.06.2007 by the plaintiff from the first defendant. Therefore, the entire service connection belongs to the plaintiff.