The plaintiff must prove correct property boundaries and ownership to obtain injunction; failure to establish this and lack of defendants' title deeds negates entitlement to permanent injunction.

JUDGMENT

The appellants are the defendants. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-temple seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing any building in the suit property. The trial Court has dismissed the suit and the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff was allowed by reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have preferred this second appeal.

2. The short facts pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff as under:-

The plaintiff-temple is administered by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (HR&CE). The suit property belongs to the Temple and the revenue records stands in the name of the Temple. The defendants' father, viz., Arunachala Muthaliar has accepted a lease in respect of the suit property in his favour and executed a lease deed in respect of the suit property in Survey No. 183/4 measuring an extent of 12,874 square feet. Subsequent to the demise of the defendants' father, the first and second sons are in enjoyment of the suit property. His sons defendants 1 and 3 are in enjoyment of the suit property. But the lease has not been transferred in the name of the defendants. It was the intention of the defendants to construct a structure without getting any approval or permission from the plaintiff's Temple. The plaintiff's Temple prevented and instructed the defendants not to put up any construction without getting permission from the Temple, and hence the suit.

3. The defendants resisted the suit by filing the written statement, which is given in brief as under:-

It is false to state that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff-Temple. The Survey No.183/4 is not situated within the boundaries as shown in the plaint. The boundaries pertain only to the property in Survey No.183/5. Survey No. 183/5 does not belong to the plaintiff's Temple. The suit property was originally owned by the ancestors of the defendants and in a family arrangement, the property was given to the share of the defendants and then onwards, they have been in enjoyment of the same. The defendants are running a petrol bunk in the property, which is shown as the boundary for the suit property. Survey No. 183/4 is situated away from Survey No. 183/5 and the suit has been filed with wrong details. The South side boundary for Survey No. 183/5 is Survey No. 183/6. The suit property has been given to the second defendant on lease in pursuant to the lease deed dated 14.07.2004 in favour of Indian Oil Corporation. As the Indian Oil Corporation is updating the petrol bunk by modernizing it, the defendants have got nothing to do with the construction therein. The constructions are put up by Indian Oil Corporation to whom the lease has been given. The Patta for the suit property has been issued in the name of the second defendant and the suit has been filed against the defendants without any cause of action.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:-“

(1)Whether the plaintiff-Temple is the owner of the suit property as alleged?

(2)Whether the plaintiff will be put to inconvenience if the defendant construct a permanent structure?

(3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction?

(4)Whether the property with S.F.No.183/4 is not situated within the four boundaries mentioned in the plaint as alleged?

(5)Whether plaintiff-Temple is no way connected with the plaint mentioned boundaries?

(6)Whether the cause of action