A suit for bare injunction is maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title if the plaintiff establishes their title and possession through cogent evidence such as registered sale deeds and revenue records, provided the defendant fails to create a genuine cloud over such title.

******

JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 05.01.2015 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, in A.S. No.51 of 2012 reversing the judgment and Decree dated 03.08.2011 passed by the District Munsiff Cum Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajah, in O.S. No.78 of 2007.

2. For the sake of convenient, the parties are referred to as per the rank of Trial Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that, she is the owner of the suit schedule property and she has purchased the same through a Registered Sale Deed, dated 02.06.1997. She is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ever since the date of purchase by changing the Revenue Records in her name. While being so, the defendant without any right, title or interest over the plaint schedule property has unlawfully trespassed into the subject property and cut and carried away the Mulveli Trees and dumped sand load and gravels over there. Hence, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the defendant on 26.05.2007. However, no reply was sent by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. The defendant filed a written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint. According to the defendant, the suit property was purchased by the Joint Family in the name of his Mother one Poongavanammal and the suit schedule property is in the possession and enjoyment of the Joint Family. The defendant’s mother had no separate income to purchase the suit property and she never enjoyed it as her absolute property and therefore, the sale deed executed by her in favour of the plaintiff is not valid and binding on the defendant and Joint Family members. The father and mother of the defendant jointly mortgaged the suit property on 22.09.1988 and the said mortgage was discharged by the defendant only on 10.07.1997. Therefore, the suit property is the Joint family property and the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same as a joint family property for all these years. Hence, the plaintiff has no right or title to file the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Based on the pleadings and submissions of both side counsel, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

(I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed?

(ii) Whether it is true that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought for by her as the suit property has been purchased from and out of Joint Family Income derived by the Joint Coparcenary family as stated by the defendant?

(iii) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

6. During the Trial, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.5 were marked. On the side of the defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked. After considering the submissions and the evidences adduced on both sides, the Trial Court has held that the suit schedule property belongs to the mother of the defendant and not the Joint Family property. However, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that since the plaintiff herself has admitted the trespass of the defendant and there is no documents to prove possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and hence she is not entitled for a relief of permanent injunction.

7. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff had filed an appeal before the Fi