IMPORTANT POINT
There is no absolute bar under Specific Relief Act to file suit for bare injunction even when title is in dispute.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff, in a suit for injunction, who initially succeeded before the trial Court, but lost before the First Appellate Court is the appellant.

2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3. The material facts that are necessary for deciding the present Second Appeal are as follows:

3.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant is the father of the plaintiff. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant and defendants 3, 4 and 6 are the siblings and 5th defendant is the husband of the 4th defendant. According to the plaintiff, the suit property comprises 6 cents out of 84 Ares in S.N.919/9. Though the properties were inherited by the first defendant and though there was no formal partition in the family, there was a family arrangement pursuant to which, the defendants 1 and 2 viz., the parents sold the suit property to one Selvaraj on 01.12.2005. The said Selvaraj, in turn, in and by sale deed dated 27.11.2008, sold the suit property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has mutated revenue records in his favour and had been in possession of the suit property without any interference from any person whomsoever. Rejecting the defence set up by the defendants, the Trial Court decreed the suit. However, on Appeal, the First Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and thereby dismissed the suit.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions:—

(i) Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by Lrs and Others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594.

(ii) Thanji Ammal Vs. Kuttachi Ammal and others in S.A. No.941 of 2006 dated 07.03.2014.

5. The 4th defendant filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.26 of 2009, claiming an 1/4th share. However, the 4th defendant did not prosecute the suit and the said suit was dismissed for default. In the said suit, the plaintiff was also arrayed as a party. It is the case of the defendants that the suit is only for a bare injunction and the same was not maintainable, without the relief of declaration of title of the plaintiff.

6. It is the further case of the learned counsel for the defendants that the 4th defendant did not authorize her father, first defendant to dispose of the suit property, by issuing any power of attorney. It is also contended that being an ancestral property, the plaintiff’s purchase under Ex.A1 was not valid and without seeking a relief for declaration of title, the suit for bare injunction was liable to be dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) M. Ramamoorthy and another Vs. R. Thirunavukkarasu in S.A. No.1570 of 2005.

(ii) Uma Devi Nambiar and Ors Vs. T.C. Sindhan (Dead) reported in AIR 2004 SC 1772

(iii) Subramanian Vs. Kosalai Ammal and others reported in 2014-3-L.W.397.

8. Subramanian’ case, referred herein supra, is relied for the proposition that when title is in dispute, the plaintiff has to include the relief of declaration and not merely seek a relief of injunction. In M. Ramamoorthy’ case, referred herein supra, this Court held that even when title had been disputed by way of written statement, a suit for bare injunction could not be maintained without amending the plaint seeking the relief of declaration.

9. On 26.02.2020, the above Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:—

“(a) Is not the First Appellate Court wrong in dismissing the suit when the plaintiff / appellant has proved his title and possession of the suit property by virtue of Exs.P1 to P3.

(b) Whether the First Appellate Court is correct in dismissing the suit by holding that the respondents 1 and 2 / defendants 4 and 5 are the absolute owners of the suit property when they did not produce any document to establish their title and possession of the suit property.”

10. I have heard Mr.R.Rajarajan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Ramesh, learned counsel for the first respondent. There i