A suit seeking injunctive relief must include a declaration of rights to be valid; otherwise, the relief sought is unsustainable if no such declaration is made.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

The Second Appeals are arising out of the Common Decree and Judgment passed by the learned VII Additional, City Civil Court, Chennai in Appeal Suit No.250 of 2013 and Cross Appeal No.182 of 2014 dated 08.10.2014.

2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and the trial court partly decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the common path way and dismissed the suit in respect of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction regarding ‘D’ schedule property and directed to remove the Slab-I. Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment, the plaintiffs have preferred the Appeal Suit in A.S.No.250 of 2013 and the defendants have preferred Cross appeal in respect of granting permanent injunction and the mandatory injunction to remove the Slab-I. The First Appellate Court confirmed the relief of mandatory injunction and dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and also dismissed the Cross Appeal filed by the defendants. Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment of the First Appellate Court in Appeal Suit and Cross appeal, the defendants have preferred these Second Appeals.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendants, as referred before the trial court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

4.1. Originally, the property bearing Door No.78-80, Soorappa Mudali Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5 was allotted to one Zainab Bee and Kathija Bee through partition deed dated 22.06.1972. As per the said partition deed, the said Zainab Bee and Kathija Bee were conferred with rights of user and enjoyment of common passage measuring 3’6” feet width and 73’6” length leading to Soorappa Mudali Street from their allotted portion. Subsequently, another partition deed was executed on 20.07.1989 between the said Zainab Bee and her daughter-in-law Habithuneesa Bee, her son, Mohammed Haneef, who is the father of the 1^st plaintiff, her son, M.Abdul Rahim, who is the father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 and her daughter Zohara Bee and Thamim Anzari, who is the son of Kathija Bee. Subsequently, the said Zohara Bee died leaving behind her only son Noor Mohamed, as her only legal heir. Thereafter, Zainab Bee died on 06.03.1996 leaving behind Habithuneesa Bee, Mohammed Haneef and Abdul Rahim as her legal heirs. While so, the said Noor Mohamed executed the release deed dated 07.10.1996 relinquishing his 1/5th share in favour of Habithuneesa Bee, Mohamed Haneef and Abdul Rahim, therefore, Habithuneesa bee, Mohammed Hanef and Abdul Rahim became entitled to absolute rights in respect of the properties.

4.2. While so, the said Mohammed Haneef, Habithuneesa bee, Mohammed Hanef jointly purchased the property belonged to Thamim Ansari, therefore, the entire property belongs to the said three persons. Already a Civil Suit was filed by Mohammed Haneef, for partition as against the others, viz., two share holders in O.S.No.4999 of 2024 on the file of the XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and a compromise was arrived at between the parties and the same was recorded by the Court on 21.02.2005. The southern portion having an extent of 391 sq.ft., together with right of common passage was allotted to Abdul Rahim. The middle portion having extent of 392 sq.ft., together with the rights of the common passage was allotted to Mohammed Haneef, and the northern portion having extent 392 sq.ft., together with rights of common passage was allotted to