A permanent injunction may be granted based on the proof of exclusive possession in a bare suit, regardless of pending partition or title disputes. Concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding possession will not be disturbed in second appeals absent perversity or illegality.

JUDGMENT :

P. Dhanabal, J.

The second appeal has been preferred as against the fair and decretal order passed by the third additional Sub Court Coimbatore in AS No 153 of 2012 dated 24/6/2014.

2. The appellant is the first defendant in the main suit. The first respondent has filed the suit as against the first and second respondents herein, for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit properties. The trial court decreed the suit and aggrieved by the said decree and judgement, the first defendant has preferred an appeal. The first Appellate Court also confirmed the decree and judgement of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal has been preferred by the first defendant.

3. The case of plaintiff is that the suit properties are the absolute properties of the plaintiff, the first item of the suit property belongs to the plaintiff by virtue of partition deed dated 3/7/1986 entered into between the plaintiff and his brother Ramasundram along with his father late Palaniappa konar. As per the said partition the schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff. There after the first plaintiff mother Valliammal excuted a registered Will dated 26/11/1993 bequeathing her property in favour of the plaintiff and his brother Ramasundaram, as per the said Will A schedule property was allotted to plaintiff namely the second item of the suit property. The mother of the plaintiff died on 18/7/2000. Immediately after the demies of his mother the will came into effect. The said will also approved by the Sub Court in OS No 51 of 2008. Thereafter in the said property the plaintiff putup a marriage hall in the name of PVG Thirumana Mahal and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The father of the plaintiff namely the Palaniappa Konar also had excuted a registered Will dated 20/11/1991 and the said palaniappa Konar died on 12/11/1998 and the said Will also proved through OS NO 51 of 2008. As per the Will in Sf No 449 of Kurichi village an extent of 0.67 acres was allotted to the plaintiff and said property has been described as third item of the suit property. Apart from that the plaintiff also purchased the fourth item of the property by virtue of sale deed dated 5/12/1969. Out of the property purchased through the above said sale deed now the plaintiff retains only an extent of 0.23 acres in Sf NO 437 of Kurichi village the said property has been described as fourth item of the suit property. As such one to four items of the suit properties are obsolute properties of the plaintiff and he is possession and enjoyment as obsolute owners. Suppressing the above said facts the first defendant has filed the suit for partition on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge Coimbatore, in OS NO 51 of 2008 and in the said suit the defendant 2 and 3 were set exparte and the said suit was dismissed after hot contest. As per finding of the court the said scheduled mentioned properties are absolute properties of the plaintiff the trial court also accepted the Will executed by the plaintiffs father and mother. The defendants absolutely have no any rights over the property. As against the decree and judgment passed by the trial court in OS No 51 of 2008, the first defendant has preferred an appeal in AS No 118/2009 and same was withdrawn as settled out of court. At the instigation of the husband of the second and third defendants with the convenience of the first defendant filed application for transposing the second and third appellant in AS NO 118/2009 and same is also pending. While so the defendants attempted to interfere with the