In a suit for injunction, reliance must be placed on evidence of possession rather than solely on ownership titles. Courts must establish actual possession before granting injunctions.

JUDGMENT

These two appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree in A.S. Nos.190 of 2009 and 201 of 2009 on the files of the Additional District Court-I, Ernakulam by which the first appellate court confirmed the findings of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam in O.S. Nos.549 of 2005 and 551 of 2005. Both suits were filed for injunction simpliciter.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The appellant/plaintiff in O.S. No.549 of 2005, claimed that she obtained the plaint schedule property by virtue of partition deed No.2465/2002 of SRO, Mulanthuruthy and as per the purchase certificate No.1471/1978, the father of the plaintiff obtained certain properties. The purchase certificate was issued in SMP No.7785 of 1976 on the files of the Deputy Collector No.1, Land Tribunal, Ernakulam. The plaintiff’s father, by name Kodiyan, died intestate, leaving his wife and five children. During the lifetime of his father, he had given the property to his two sons, one Gopalan and Divakaran, towards their shares. The balance property was partitioned with their juncture and without allotting any shares to them. The property was thus partitioned into three shares, and the plaint schedule property is the A schedule to the partition deed. The 1st defendant is a distant relative of the plaintiff, and the 2nd defendant is her son. The defendants never had possession and ownership of the plaint schedule property. On 3.4.2005, the defendants, along with their henchmen, attempted to trespass into plaint schedule property, and the attempt was thwarted by the plaintiff's brother, who is residing nearby and hence the suit. The defendants entered appearance and contested that Sri. Kodiyan, the great-grandfather of the 2nd defendant, obtained Verumpattan right over 40 cents of property in Survey No.110/02 of Kureekkad village and by virtue of partition deed No.1084 of 1960, of SRO Mulanthuruthy, the property was partitioned among the heirs. A pathway having a width of 5 links was provided on the eastern side of the property to reach the panchayath road on the southern side. The 1st defendant and her two brothers, namely Kunhankutty and Velayudhan obtained 18 cents of property by virtue of the partition deed. It is further contended that Sri. Kunjankutty sold his share of 6 cents to Mrs.Rajalakshmi, and similarly, Sri. Velayudhan sold 4 cents from his share to the aforesaid Rajalakshmi. Subsequently, Velayudhan, Kunjankutty and the 1st defendant together assigned 6 cents of property in survey No.110/2 to the 2nd defendant as per sale deed No.1228/1992, and this property forms part of the plaint schedule. Immediately on institution of the said suit, O.S. No.551 of 2008 was instituted by the 2nd defendant in O.S. No.549 of 2005 claiming a prohibitory injunction, declaration and mandatory injunction restraining the plaintiff in the other suit and her siblings from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and also for removal of the well constructed encroaching into the plaint A schedule property. The defendants therein resisted the suit by raising the same defence as claimed in O.S. No.549 of 2005. Both suits were tried together, and O.S. No.551 of 2005 was taken as the lead case. On behalf of the plaintiff Exts.A1 to A13 documents were produced, and on behalf of the defendants Exts.B1 to B21 were produced. Exts.C1 to C4 are the reports and sketches submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. PW1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff, and DW1 to DW3 were examined on behalf of the defendants. The