Person in possession entitled to permanent injunction without title declaration if no contra evidence.

JUDGMENT

The defendants in a suit in O.S.No.1790 of 2018 are the appellants herein. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above said suit seeking permanent injunction and it was dismissed by the Trial Court. Challenging the findings of the Trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.230 of 2024 and it was allowed by the first appellate court by granting a decree for permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the defendants have filed the present second appeal before this court.

3. According to the respondent/plaintiff, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 21 years, without any disturbance. As per the plaint averments, originally, the suit property was allotted by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in favour of one Natarajan, who is the plaintiff’s husband’s grand father. In the said property, the plaintiff’s husband constructed a superstructure out of his own funds and also by selling the plaintiff’s sreedhana ornaments and it was rented out to the tenants. The plaintiff’s husband had been collecting the rents from the tenants till his death on 16.08.2012 and subsequently, rent has been collected by the plaintiff’s in-laws. After demise of the plaintiff’s husband, the defendants attempted to throw out the plaintiff from the suit property with the help of rowdy elements. In such circumstances, the suit was laid by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction.

4. The appellants/defendants filed a written statement and denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The averments made in the plaint as if the plaintiff’s husband had put up construction and had been collecting rent were denied by the defendants. According to them, originally, the suit property was allotted to one Rajammal by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and the said Rajammal sold it to one Natarajan and thereafter, the 1^st and 2^nd defendants purchased the same from the said Natarajan on 17.05.1996. It was further stated by the defendants that the said Natarajan again reiterated the sale by executing a document along with his wife in favour of the 2^nd defendant on 06.05.1997 and from the date of purchase, the 2^nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants further stated that the son of the defendants 1 and 2 married the plaintiff and he requested the 2^nd defendant to accommodate him in the suit house. According to the defendants, considering the poor condition and also the interest of the kids, the 2^nd defendant allowed the plaintiff’s husband to stay in the suit property temporarily. Unfortunately, the plaintiff’s husband died in a suspicious manner on 16.08.2012 and there was no smooth relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. Further, the plaintiff is trying to usurp the suit property by filing the said suit. On these pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and 8 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 on her side. On the side of the defendants, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

6. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence available on record, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.230 of 2024 on the file of XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first appellate court, on re- appreciation of evidence available on record, reversed the findings of the trial court and thus granted a decree for permanent injunction. Challenging the findings of the first appellate court, the defendants/ appel