A suit for bare injunction is not maintainable between co-owners unless there is a claim for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

JUDGMENT

This Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013 made in A.S. No. 42 of 2012 passed by the learned First Additional Sub- Ordinate Judge, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2012 made in O.S. No. 49 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode.

2. The Appellant in this appeal is the sole Defendant in O.S. No. 49 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Erode. The suit in O.S. No. 49 of 2006 was filed by the Plaintiffs, who are the cousins of the sole Defendant in the suit. The suit was filed for the relief of bare injunction.

3. As per the plaint averments, the paternal grandmother of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Palaniammal had two sons – Ramasamy Gounder and Thammana Gounder. On 14.05.1980 there was partition in the family of Palaniammal whereby 'A' schedule property was allotted to Palaniammal. 'B' schedule property was allotted to Thammana Gounder and 'C' schedule property was allotted to Ramasamy Gounder. After the death of Palaniammal, 'A' schedule property was equally partitioned between the Plaintiffs' father Ramasamy Gounder and Defendant's father Thammana Gounder. The daughters of Palaniammal had executed release deed regarding their share in the property of Palaniammal in 'A' schedule property. The father of the Plaintiffs Ramasamy Gounder died on 03.02.1988. The mother of the Plaintiffs also died on 24.08.2003. The Plaintiffs were given in marriage and they are residing in different places. After the death of Palaniammal, the Plaintiffs' father and Defendant's father were enjoying their respective allotted shares as their separate properties. After the death of Plaintiffs' father on 03.02.1988, the Plaintiffs as legal heirs of Ramasamy Gounder succeeded to the properties in possession and enjoyment of Ramasamy Gounder. Even though Ramasamy Gounder died and the mother of the Plaintiffs also died, the paternal uncle of the Plaintiffs had not interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties left by their father Ramasamy Gounder.

4. It is further stated in the plaint that in the land in Survey No.636/11, 604/2, 683/3 there are wells and the electricity service connection for the wells bearing service connection Nos.1,11,72 were in the name of Ramasamy Gounder. Since Ramasamy Gounder died, the Plaintiffs applied for transfer of name and accordingly, the service connection was transferred in the name of the Plaintiffs as legal heirs of Ramasamy Gounder. The wells in Survey No.636/11, 604/2 and 683/3 are common to both Plaintiffs and Defendant. Apart from that, there is a well in Survey No.636/9 which is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs. Since the Plaintiffs do not have brothers and Ramasamy Gounder did not have male children, the Defendant is the only male heir to Ramasamy Gounder and Thammana Gounder. Therefore, he is insisting the Plaintiffs to hand over possession of the properties to him, as he is the only legal heir or a male member in the family of Ramasamy Gounder and Thammana Gounder. Since the Plaintiffs had been married and are living away from the suit properties, the Defendant attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties including drawal of water from the well – from both the common well as well as the exclusive well of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs sought mediation before the elders in the family and in the village during which the Defendant was advised not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties enjoyed by the Plaintiffs. For sometime, the Defendant did not interfere