In a suit for injunction simpliciter, if the defendant raises a bona fide dispute regarding the plaintiff's title, the court cannot decide the issue of possession without deciding the issue of title; thus, the plaintiff must file a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and consequential relief.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.10.2020 passed in A.S.No.46 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Sankarankovil, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 22.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.307 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil.

2.The facts in brief:

A portion in the first item was purchased by the plaintiff on 30.08.1988. The southern 15 cents belongs to the plaintiff ancestrally. The northern portion and some other properties originally belongs to Soodamani @ Periyasamy ancestrally. The northern portion and some other properties were purchased by the plaintiff on 30.06.1998 from him. So the entire first item belongs to the plaintiff. Revenue records mutated in his name and in possession.

3.The second item originally belongs to one Eswarathevar. From Eswarathevar, the plaintiff purchased the second item on 09.02.1999. The second item also came into the possession of the plaintiff absolutely.

The defendant has no right over the properties, on 07.10.2007, when the plaintiff was doing reparing work, the defendant came to the property and caused trouble. So the suit is laid for permanent injunction and for cost.

4.The averments of the Statement filed by the first defendant:

The first item and other properties originally belongs to one Karuppsamy thevar. From him, the defendant's father by name Sangappathevar purchased the first item and others on 19.04.1988. So also the second item originally belongs to Periyasamythevar. From him also Sangappathevar purchased the property on 13.12.1988. The defendant has 4/15th share in the Well situated in the S.No.465/2 in the Southern side. When trouble was made by the plaintiff, over them a suit in O.S.No.213 of 1994 was filed by his father against the plaintiff and others. It was decreed in favour of the defendant's father on 04.09.1998. Against which A.S.No.150 of 1998 was filed before the Sub Court, Tenkasi. That was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the suit. Against which, the second appeal in S.A.No.1746 of 2000 was filed and stated to be pending till date. Even after the dismissal of the appeal made by the plaintiff, they are making trouble.

5.The first item was purchased by the plaintiff measuring about 15 cents from one Soodamani @ Periyasamythevar on 20.09.1988. Now suppressing the above said fact, he purchased the very same property from some other person. Having no right over the property, the plaintiff filed the suit to usurp the properties lies on the north of survey number 465/2. Patta also standing in the name of defendant and his father previously.

6.Additional statement was filed after the plaint was amended, wherein, it is stated that Soodamani @ Periyasamythevar was not the owner of the first item measured about 30 cents. That document is not correct and suit in O.S.No.213 of 1994 was pending to create some rights. The suit without prayer of declaration is not maintainable. Similarly in respect of second item also the vendor of plaintiff has no right or title. That document was created pending suit in O.S.No.213 of 1994. In respect of that property also patta is standing in the name of the defendant.

7.Suppressing the earlier round of litigation and pendency of second appeal in S.A.(MD).No.1746 of 2000 in respect of the very same property in suit in O.S.No.213/1994, the plaintiff filed the present suit, which was dismissed after full trial. So the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands.

8.On the basis of the above said pleadings the trial court formulated three issues.

1. Whether the suit properties absolutely bel