JUDGEMENT

This second appeal is filed by the defendant in the suit as against the judgement and decree, dated 19.06.2013, passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, in A.S.No.38 of 2012, confirming the judgement and decree, dated 17.04.2012, passed by the Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam, in O.S.No.241 of 2005, which was one for permanent injunction.

2.The Appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff had approached the trial Court and filed O.S.No.241 of 2005, seeking for bare injunction, restraining the defendant, who is the appellant herein and his men and servants from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3.According to the respondent/plaintiff, the suit scheduled property was purchased by him on 15.07.1988, under Ex.A2, from one Mr.Gopalakrishnan Chettiar, the vendor. The said Gopalakrishnan came into possession of the suit scheduled property as early as in 1976, through family settlement, dated 24.07.1976, called 'Coor chit', wherein, the properties were divided among the family members and the said Gopalakrishnan, being one of the family members, was given a portion of the properties under the said settlement. Thereafter, he sold the property to the present plaintiff on 15.07.1988. The family settlement, dated 24.07.1976, was an unstamped and unregistered document. According to the plaintiff, when the family settlement was effected in 1976, the same was acted upon and the parties had come into possession of their respective properties allotted to them. In any event, according to the plaintiff, he had purchased the property, on 15.07.1988, through a registered sale deed Ex.A2 from the vendor Gopalakrishnan and was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit Scheduled property.

4.According to the plaintiff, originally the property contained a superstructure and that was mortgaged by the plaintiff to one Senthil, on 29.09.1988. Subsequently, the superstructure was demolished and the suit scheduled property had become vacant. During some time in 1988, the plaintiff was asked by the father of the defendant to sell back the property, since that was not agreed to, an attempt was made to disturb the possession of the property by the plaintiff. In fact, a suit was filed in O.S.No.157 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Tindivanam, by one Lakshmikandammal, who was original title holder of the property, from whom, the property devolved upon Gopalakrishnan Chettiar, the vendor of the plaintiff. The suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession. However, the suit was finally dismissed for non-prosecution on 08.01.2004 and thereafter, the suit was not pursued at all, by either Lakshmikanthammal or anyone on her behalf.

5.In the above circumstances, in order to protect his possession and enjoyment, the respondent herein, as plaintiff, has approached the civil Court seeking for permanent injunction, which suit is the subject matter of the present Second Appeal.

6.A written statement was filed on behalf of the appellant/defendant stating that the family settlement entered into in 1976 was an invalid settlement and the same cannot be relied upon, as it was an unstamped and unregistered document and also it was not acted upon by the parties. According to the defendant the said Gopalakrishnan had no title and therefore, his conveyance to the plaintiff had not conferred any title to the plaintiff.

7.After adverting to various materials and evidence and also the pleadings, the trial Court has passed the judgement on

17.04.2012, granting the prayer of injunction, as sought by the plaintiff. While granting injunction, the trial Court has clearly reasoned that even though there was a cloud created as to the title of the plaintiff over the suit property, yet the possession was proved beyond any doubt and ultimately, granted the relief. In fact, the trial Court in extenso has relied on a decision of