The court affirmed that possession does not equate to ownership without valid title, and a declaratory right is distinct from a right to injunction.

JUDGMENT

The above Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.14 of 2017 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 27.04.2017 in O.S.No.279 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruchengode.

2.The parties are described in the same array as in the Original Suit.

3.The appellant is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 5 and their supporters, restraining them from in anyway interfering or disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and removing the name of the plaintiff in revenue records pertaining to the suit properties.

4.According to the plaintiff, the suit properties are agricultural lands, 8 thatched houses, 7 tiled houses and one terraced house. The plaintiff is residing in one house and paying the House Tax to the building and Electricity Consumption Charges. The revenue records also stand in the name of the plaintiff. The father of the 1^st defendant, namely, Ponnusamy and four others have claimed a novel right upon the suit properties and tried to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.276 of 1992 against the said Ponnusamy and four others, for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 19.02.2001. Thereafter, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

5.The husband of the 1^st defendant, namely, Ponnusamy, who is the 4^th defendant in O.S.No.276 of 1992, died and his legal heirs are on record as the defendants 1 to 3 in the present suit. The 4^th defendant is the wife of the 2^nd defendant. The 5^th defendant is the husband of the 3^rd defendant. The defendants created sham and nominal document dated 29.08.2008, as if the defendants sold the suit properties in between the defendants 4 and 5. The defendants 1 to 3 have no right or title upon the suit properties. Based on the said Sale Deed, the defendants 4 and 5 could not got any right or title over the suit properties. Further, the plaintiff is not a party to the said Sale Deed. Based on the said Sale Deed, the defendants are trying to remove the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a Notice on 25.09.2008 to the defendants, but there was no response. The defendants 2 and 4 have refused to receive the said notice. On 19.10.2008, the defendants 1 to 5 were trying to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

6.According to the defendants, the plaintiff is not residing in one house of the buildings and not paying house tax. He obtained electric service connections by misrepresenting the Electricity Board, after obtaining illegal patta for the suit properties without title. The 2^nd defendant contended that the plaintiff being the adjoining land owner, with the bad intention to grab the entire suit properties of the defendants, making false attempt, after illegally obtained patta for the suit properties. The suit properties consist of a portion of the ancestral property of the father of the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants and the husband of the 1^st defendant. Also a portion of the self earned property of the 2^nd defendant and his uncle by a Sale deed in 2000, which was allotted to the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants by a Partition Deed in the year 2001. From the date of death of the husband of the 1^st respondent and the father of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, the defendants 1 to 3 were enjoying. In 2008, the defendants 1 to