Possession is protected under law, even when title is disputed, allowing for injunction without declaring title.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2019 in A.S.No.59 of 2017 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Chidambaram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2017 in O.S.No.26 of 2014 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai.

2.The plaintiff is the appellant in this regular second appeal.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

4.The plaintiff has filed the above suit in O.S.No.26 of 2014 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Parangipettai for the following relief:

a. Pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and persons claiming right under them, from, in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession, enjoyment of the suit property.

5. The defendants 1 to 3 remained ex-parte.

6. The 4^th defendant alone filed the written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff.

7. Based on the materials placed on record the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this, the 4^th defendant preferred the appeal suit in A.S.No.59 of2017 before Sub Court, Chidambaram which had reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by such judgement the plaintiff filed the present second appeal.

8. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

1.Whether the first appellate Court is right in negativing the relief of permanent injunction admittedly, the appellant/plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property by adducing positive oral and documentary evidence in P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Exhibit A4 to A14?

2.Whether the first appellate Court is a final Court of fact and law, not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and relied on speculative invalid sale between the defendants 1 to 3 with the 4th defendant and erred in dismissing the suit that the appellant/plaintiff ought to have asked for a declaration of title and injunction instead of permanent injunction suit?

3.Whether the clandestine sale deed obtained by the fourth defendant from the second wife of Masilamani (while his first wife is alive) without possession and without for minors the permission is hit by Guardian and Wards Act and Transfer of property Act is considered as a dispute over title of the suit property?

9. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit property is the ancestral property of Gopalsamy who had two sons namely Masilamani and Ayyanar. After the demise of Gopalsamy and his wife, the property was inherited by Masilamani and Ayyanar. The said Masilamai married one Valli and they had a daughter who died unmarried. Thereafter, Masilamani died in the year 2011 leaving his wife Valli as his only legal heir. The plaintiff is the wife of Ayyanar who also died in the same year leaving his wife-the plaintiff, his two sons and a daughter as his legal heirs. The plaintiff is residing in the ancestral joint family house, which is the suit property. Thus, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, in the first week of September 2014 the 4^th defendant threatened the plaintiff to vacate the suit house by stating that he purchased the property from the defendants 1 to 3. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3 are not the legal heirs of the deceased Masilamani and that the sale deed dated 12.09.2011 is not a valid document and that the said document was created to grab the property from the plaintiff. On 01.10.2014 the