In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff's possession is established and title is not disputed, an action seeking only an injunction can proceed without requiring a declaration of title.

JUDGMENT

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.167 of 2019, dated 31.10.2019, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Melur, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.300 of 2007, dated 04.08.2011, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur.

2. The appellants are the defendants 2 and 3. The respondents 1 to 3 along with their mother Tmt.Rakkammal, as plaintiffs filed a suit claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from in any manner tresspassing upon or interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in their original suit.

4. Admittedly, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the son and daughters of the first plaintiff and her deceased husband C.Pandi.

5. The case of the plaintiffs in short is as follows:

(a) The suit property measuring an extent of 92 cents in Survey No.236/1 of Poonchuthi Village was assigned in favour of the deceased Pandi by the Government in the year 1983. The deceased Pandi obtained patta and was paying tax regularly to the Government. Since the said Pandi died on 15.12.2005, the plaintiffs being his legal heirs became the owners of the suit property. They have applied for patta transfer before the Tahsildar and after enquiry, the Tahsildar passed an order dated 24.06.2006 transferring the patta in favour of the plaintiffs.

(b) The defendants are the owners of the property adjacent to the suit property. The defendants wanted to purchase the suit property, but since the plaintiffs were not amenable, there existed enmity between them. The defendants, taking advantage of the death of Pandi, atempted to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to send a complaint to the Chief Minister Cell. Even thereafter, the defendants on 30.07.2007 attempted to cut the trees. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the above suit seeking permanent injunction.

6. The defence of the defendants in short is as follows:

(a) Originally, the suit property and the adjacent properties belonged to Irattairpady Jamindar. Since the people belonging to Meenakshipuram Village were working under the Jamin, the suit property comprised in Survey No.236/1 was gifted to them and the people constructed their houses and have been residing therein for a long time.

(b) During Natham survey, Survey No.236/1 was sub-divided into 236/1, 3 to 6 and patta was granted in favour of one Veerappa Chettiar in patta No.190. In the meanwhile, one Periannan attempted to evict the people from the properties in Survey No.236/1 and hence, the colony people were forced to file a caveat petition. Since the colony people went on fast before the Tahsildar office to cancel the patta proceedings, a peace committee meeting was conducted. Survey No.236/2 was classified as Grama Natham in Natham Survey and as such, the plaintiffs' contention that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property is false and untenable.

(c) The Tahsildar conducted spot inspection and submitted a detailed report to the Deputy Collector stating that the property in Survey No.236/2 stands in the name of one Sivanandi and totally 25 families are living in the said property. The plaintiffs have not done any cultivation in the suit property and they have also not paid the dues to the Government. The plaintiffs, on the basis of the wrong entries in the revenue records, filed the above suit. Since the suit was filed for permanent injunction without seeking declaratio