Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 2337
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. Vadamalai, J.
V.Amuthan @ Paraman, S/o.Vellaichamy Thevar - Appellant
Versus
C.Murugesan (Died) –Respondent
S.A(MD)No.225 of 2012
Decided On : 22-07-2026
For the Appellant : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.N.Sathish Babu
For the Respondent: Mr.PT.S.Narendra Vasan
A person in peaceful, settled possession of a property is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction against interference, even from a person claiming better title. In a suit for injunction where title is unclear for both parties, established possession is the deciding factor for granting relief.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Suit for permanent injunction - Maintainability of suit for injunction without seeking declaration of title where possession is established - Principle of settled possession as a ground for granting injunction - Interference with peaceful possession by a party, even if a rightful owner, cannot be sustained without due process of law (Paras 10, 15, 21).
(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - Where both parties fail to prove superior title, established prior possession of the plaintiff provides a sufficient basis for granting a decree for permanent injunction - A litigant in peaceful possession is entitled to protect it against interference until evicted through legal procedure (Paras 21, 22).
Facts of the case:
The controversy involved a claim for permanent injunction over a piece of agricultural land. The plaintiff asserted his right based on a partition deed and continuous payment of land taxes, claiming settled possession. The defendants contested the case, arguing that the origin of the property lay in an earlier purchase by their ancestors and denied the plaintiff's title, suggesting the suit was not maintainable without a formal declaration of title. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court reversed it, holding that the absence of a prayer for declaration of title invalidated the suit.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff demonstrated long-standing settled possession through revenue documentation, whereas the defendants failed to provide evidence of their own possession or superior title, rendering the initial trial court's assessment of facts more reliable.
Issues: Whether a suit for bare injunction is maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title when such title is disputed; and whether the plaintiff's settled possession is sufficient to entitle him to an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: An individual in peaceful and settled possession is entitled to protect that possession against any interference, even by a party claiming better title, until evicted through appropriate legal proceedings. When parties produce conflicting or insufficient evidence regarding title, the court will protect the proven settled possession in an injunction suit to prevent extra-legal dispossession.
Result: The second appeal is allowed; the judgment of the first appellate court is set aside, and the decree of the trial court is restored.
JUDGMENT :
P. Vadamalai, J.
This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2011 passed in A.S.No.83 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2011 passed in O.S.No.160 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Usilampatti.
2.The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.160 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Usilampatti. The respondents are the defendants in that suit. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.
2.1. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants in O.S.No.160 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Usilampatti.
2.2. The suit was laid against the defendants 1 and 2. On the death of the 1st defendant, his legal heirs were added as defendants 3 to 5.
3.The Case of the plaintiff:-
It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff’s grandfather Periyamaya Thevar, who had two sons, Vellaichamy and Muthukannan. Muthukannan died as a bachelor. Vellaichamy had two sons, namely the plaintiff and his brother Thavamani. After the death of the grandfather, Periyamaya Thevar, the plaintiff''s father solely enjoyed the properties till his death in October, 1972. After Vellaichamy died, the plaintiff and his brother Thavamani enjoyed the property. Thereafter, the plaintiff and his brother Thavamani entered into a registered partition deed, dated 12.01.1987. The suit property was allotted to the plaintiff as per the said partition deed and the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The revenue records were mutated in the name of the plaintiff and Patta was also issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been paying kist for a long period. The defendants 1 and 2 were inimical towards the plaintiff due to various reasons. On 19.08.2003, the defendants 1 and 2 along with rowdy elements attempted to trespass into the suit property without any right and the same was prevented by the plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 went out by threatening to trespass into the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died and his legal heirs were added as defendants 3 to 5.
4.The case of the Defendants:-
It is the case of the defendants that the suit property with a larger extent, i.e., 1 acre 96 cents, did not belong to the plaintiff’s grandfather. In fact, the property was purchased by the defendants’ forefathers, namely Ammavasi @ Solai Kurumba Thevar and Muthu Kurumba Thevar from one Chinna Karuppa Thevar in 1920. They had othied the suit property to one Sundaram Chettiar on 17.05.1943 with four boundaries. The plaintiff’s grandfather Periyamaya Thevar was not shown in any of the boundaries. Moreover, the suit property was given othi by the defendants’ forefathers on 12.07.1967, 09.08.1979 and 29.01.1983 and the same was redeemed. The defendants and their ancestors have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff has not been possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff is the paternal uncle of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff deceived the 1st defendant at the time of survey measurement and obtained patta in his name as if he had the right over the suit property by forgery. The alleged trespass into the suit property by the defendants is false. The plaintiff has no cause of action. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5.During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 25 exhibits as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.25. The defendants have examined D.W.1 to D.W.4 and marked 17 exhibits as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.17.
6.After hearing both sides, the trial Court
