Possession rights are upheld over disputed title claims in injunction suits, requiring clear legal grounding for title disputes, primarily when asserting complex property ownership.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.2019 made in A.S. No.8/2019 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Puducherry, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2019 made in O.S. No.979/2010 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Puducherry.

2. The appellants are the defendants in the above suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

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

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property consists of two vacant plots situate at Saram Revenue Village, Oulgaret, Pondicherry in Cad No.307, RS No.239/5pt to an extent of 3600 sq. ft. as plot Nos. 23 and 24 respectively. According to the plaintiff, Ex.A2 sale deed was executed on 14.07.2010 by virtue of the Award passed on 28.05.2010 under Ex.A1. The plaintiff from then onwards is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and since the defendants were interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, he was constrained to file the above suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.

5. On the other hand, the contention of the defendants is that the 1^st defendant has purchased the suit properties under Ex.B25 and Ex.B29 on 17.09.2004 from the 2^nd defendant, who was the power agent of one Kaliyamurthy. Thereafter, the 1^st defendant has given power to the 3^rd defendant under Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 to take care of the suit property.

6. The trial court, based on the materials placed on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Assailing the judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants preferred the appeal suit in A.S. No.8 of 2019 before the Additional Sub-Court, Puducherry. The first appellate court dismissed the above appeal suit, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by this, the present second appeal is preferred by the defendants.

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

I. Whether the courts below erred in decreeing the suit for bare injunction in the absence of prayer for declaration, more so when the defendants have disputed the title of the plaintiff and there are serious issues regarding the identity of the property?

II. Whether the findings of the courts below can be termed as perverse in as much as they had not gone into the title of the plaintiff by examining the sale deeds, viz., Ex.A2, Ex.B2 and Ex.B29?

8. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submits that the 1^st defendant has purchased two vacant plots vide sale deed dated 17.09.2004 from the 2^nd defendant under Ex.B25 and Ex.B29 respectively. The 2^nd defendant was the power agent of one Kaliyamurthy. Thereafter, the 1^st defendant gave power to the 3^rd defendant to take care of the suit properties under Ex.B3 and Ex.B4. According to the defendants the above properties is comprised in Cad No.307, R.S. No.239/5pt and one plot is measuring 1800 sq.ft. and another plot is measuring 2295 sq.ft. He would further submit that the 1^st defendant's vendor Kaliyamurthy became owner of property in Cad No.307, R.S. No.239/5pt to an extent of 61 Kuzhies 8 veesams out of 1 Kani 23 kuzhies on the northern side of the property vide Ex.B24 release deed dated 15.06.1998. The plaintiff's vendor's father was one Ganapathy who became owner of property in Cad No.307, R.S. No.239/5 Pt to an extent of 61 kuzhies 8 veesams out of 1 kani 23 kuzhies on the southern side of the property vide Ex.B8 release deed dated 24.0