A suit for injunction is maintainable even without a prayer for declaration when the plaintiff is in possession and the title is not under dispute or a cloud.

JUDGMENT

R.S.A.No.824 of 2020 has been filed under Section 100 r/w Order XLII of the Code of Civil Procedure , challenging the decree and judgment in O.S.No.583 of 2010 dated 26.02.2015 on the files of Sub Court, Kottayam and the decree and judgment in A.S.No.86 of 2015 dated 06.01.2020 on the files of the Additional District Judge, Kottayam. The appellant is the defendant in the suit – Sri.Krishnakumar. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit – Sri.G.Gopakumar.

2. R.S.A.No.21 of 2021 is also filed by Sri.Krishnakumar, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.183/2012 on the files of the Sub Court, Kottayam, challenging the decree and judgment of the above said order dated 26.02.2015 and confirmed by the decree and judgment in A.S.No.85 of 2015 dated 06.01.2020 on the files of Additional District Judge, Kottayam.

Sri.Gopakumar is the respondent herein also.

3. I shall refer the parties as ‘appellant’ and ‘respondent’ (their status in this second appeal) hereinafter for convenience.

4. At the time of admission of R.S.A.No.824/2020, my predecessor, as per order dated 20^th October, 2022, framed the following substantial questions of law.

(i) Whether the suit filed for injunction without prayer of declaration is maintainable in law?

(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below is perverse due to mis-appreciation of evidence?

Similarly, at the time of admission of R.S.A.No.21/2021, as per order dated 20^th October 2022, framed the following substantial questions of law.

(i) Whether the findings that the suit is barred by limitation is legally sustainable?

(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the courts below is perverse due to mis-appreciation of evidence?

5. Heard; Sri. C. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent - who appeared as party in person.

Perused the lower court records and the decisions relied on by both sides.

6. O.S.No.583/2010 is one filed by the respondent herein seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction when he apprehended trespass upon the plaint schedule property at the instance of the appellant herein. According to the respondent herein, he purchased the plaint schedule property having an extent of 14.18 Ares in R.Sy.No.319/1/1 of Thrikodithanam Village from the appellant on the strength of sale deed No.2491/2007 of Thengana SRO and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and he had effected mutation also. The appellant herein resisted the above suit and also filed O.S.No.183/2012 seeking to declare that sale deed No.2491/2007 of Thengana SRO in favour of the respondent as null and void and also for prohibitory injunction restraining respondent herein from trespassing upon the property.

7. The court below jointly tried the suits treating O.S.No.183/2012 as the leading case. Accordingly, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the plaintiff/appellant herein. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.B1 to B11 were marked on the side of the defendant/respondent herein. Exts.C1 and C1(a) were also marked as court exhibits. Finally, the trial court dismissed O.S.No.183/2012 and decreed O.S.No.583/2010 as under:

“In the result, O.S.183/2012 is dismissed and O.S.583/2010 is decreed as follows:-

The defendant in O.S. 583/2010 is restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, from committing any act of waste therein, from making any further construction in the plaint schedule item No.1 property and from making any further modification of plaint schedule item No.2 shed. The