In a suit for injunction, courts cannot resolve title issues without them being framed as questions; findings on title stand vacated.

EASWARAN S., J -----------------------------------------------

R.S.A. No.1094 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2026 JUDGMENT The present appeal arises out of the concurrent findings in O.S.No.609 of 2004 on the files of the Principal Munsiff Court,Kannur as confirmed by the Additional District Court, Thalassery in A.S.No.138 of 2006. The defendants in the suit for injunction have come up in the present appeal contending that in a suit for injunction, the courts below had virtually decided the title.

2. The plaintiff contended that the property orginally belonged to Kunhiraman and his sisters Manikkam, Devaki, Thirumali and Madhavi who purchased the property as per assignment deed No.2165 of 1903 of SRO, Kannur and the property is a Thavazhi property. Kunhiraman died long before the year 1956 and his undivided shares devolved upon other members of the Thavazhi and subsequently O.S.No.14 of 1988 was instituted before the Sub Court, Thalassery. There is a house in the plaint schedule property, where one Asha Pathmanabhan, one of the Thavazhi members was residing and she was a defendant in O.S.No.14 of 1988. The said Asha Pathmanabhan is the daughter of Kausalya, who is the daughter of Devaki and was Executor No.3 of document No.2165 of 1903, under which the property was purchased. The defendants are total strangers and they are not even members of the Thavazhi. The defendants appeared and contested the case contending that they are the proper legal heirs of deceased Kunhiraman and that they are not aware of the earlier suit. Based on the respective pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues.

(1) Whether the plaint schedule property is in the absolute possession of the plaintiff and his thavazhi members?

(2) Whether the cause of action alleged is true?

(3) What relief and costs?

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence the trial court concluded that the defendants have no claim over the property since they do not belong to the present thavazhi and they are nowhere connected with the thavazhi of Kunhiraman under whom the plaintiffs claim right. Pertinently, the trial court without looking into the fact that Asha Padmanabhan who was stated to be residing in the property was not made a party to the suit, proceeded to decree the suit. Aggrieved the defendants preferred A.S.No.138 of 2006, which was also dismissed and hence the present appeal.

3. Heard Sri.Sidharth R.Wariyar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

4. Though notice was ordered on the application for condonation of delay and despite service being completed, none appears for the respondents/plaintiffs and hence this Court proceeded to consider the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in a suit for injunction simplicitor, the trial court could not have gone into the entitlement of the defendants to claim the right over the plaint schedule property. There were no issues framed on the title of either the plaintiffs or the defendants over the plaint schedule property. At any rate, the possession of the plaintiffs was also not proved but then it had come out in evidence that one Asha Padmanabhan was staying in the plaint schedule property. Even if, the decree for injunction could be sustained, the findings as regards the entitlement of the defendants to claim any right over the Thavazhi property could not have been the subject matter of the present suit.

6. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration on the submissions raised on behalf of the appellants and is of the considered view that, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. As regards the claim of ti