In injunction suits, establishing possession suffices; title issues arise when challenged by defendants claiming rights, thus not necessitating formal title proof by plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT

Thes appeals are at the instance of the defendants in a suit for injunction.

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

2.1. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Areekkara Tharwad. O.S. No. 3 of 1945 was instituted before the Sub Court, Kozhikode seeking partition of the plaint schedule property. In the said suit, a Receiver was appointed. One Thuvasseri Imbachan obtained the suit property and other properties on an oral verumbattam, from the Receiver. Since then, it is claimed that he was in possession of the property. As per a final decree in the suit for partition, a share over the property was given to one Areekkara Kunhipennu. As per the will executed by the said Kunhipennu, the jenm right became vested with Poothamkuzhiyil Kandakutty. Thereafter, it is stated that Thuvasseri Imbachan was paying rent to Poothamkuzhiyil Kandakutty.

2.2. On the death of Thuvasseri Imbachan the property devolved upon his legal heirs and later a Partition Deed No. 16 of 1967 of SRO, Chevayur, was executed having an extent of 2.5 acres. As per the registered Gift Deed No. 372/1970, the property was gifted by the wife of Thuvasseri Imbachan to the predecessor of the plaintiff, namely Thuvasseri Satheesh Kumar. On attaining majority, Satheesh Kumar took possession of the property. While so, the purchase certificate was issued to him assigning the jenm rights. Later, an extent of 27 cents was acquired by the Government for the purpose of improving the Pottammal – Palazhi road. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, LAR No. 519 of 1997 was filed for enhancement of the compensation and was granted to him.

2.3. One Gopalan had filed O.S. No. 701 of 1997 seeking right of way over a field bund in the suit property claiming width more than the actual width. Another person named Satheesh Kumar also instituted O.S. No. 789 of 1997 seeking for an injunction against the trespassers in his property. Both O.S. Nos. 789 of 1997 and 701 of 1997 were under Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 . Later, on 18.04.1999, Satheesh Kumar died. By judgment and decree dated 30.11.2001, O.S. No. 701 of 1997 was dismissed and O.S. No. 789 of 1997 was decreed and the defendants therein were restrained from trespassing into the property. Based on these material averments, the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs are in possession of the property.

2.4. On 15.03.2008, there was an attempt made by the defendants 1 and 2 to trespass into the plaint schedule property and, therefore, based on the said cause of action, the suit for injunction simpliciter was instituted. The defendants entered appearance and resisted the suit contending that the plaintiffs does not have a title over the property. It was contended that the possession of Thuvasseri Imbachan over the plaint schedule property was itself illegal because of the fact that the Receiver in O.S. No. 3 of 1945 had granted permission only for a period of one year to Thuvasseri Imbachan to cultivate the property without the permission of the Court and thus no proprietary right could be vest with it. It was further contended that the purchase certificate issued in favour of the plaintiffs was also not binding upon the defendants.

2.5. The defendants 2 to 5, 7 and 8 had filed a separate written statement contending that as per E.P. No. 132 of 1954, Kunhipennu obtained actual possession of the property allotted to her and going by Will No. 18 of 1960 of SRO, Chevayur, she had bequeathed the property in favour of Kandakutty who is the son of her brother and thereafter on 05.03.1973, Kanda