Injunction sustainable on proved possession without declaration if no title cloud or property identity with prior decree established.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. MARIA CLETE, J.

This Second Appeal is filed by the defendants 2 and 3 against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2013 in A.S.No.7 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kallakurichi confirming the Judgment and decree dated 16.09.2004 in O.S.No.338 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, whereby the trial Court decreed the suit for permanent injunction .

2. For the convenience , the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. Plaintiff’s Case in Brief: The Plaintiff’s case is that the suit property is land in S.No.111/8 measuring 45 cents in Vinaitheerthapuram village, Kallakurichi Taluk. The plaintiff claimed that he purchased the suit property under Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 20.03.1995 from Perumayee Ammal and others. According to him, the suit property is the second item in the sale deed. He pleaded that from the date of purchase he was in possession and enjoyment; that he was paying kist; and that chitta and adangal also supported his possession. His further case was that the defendants owned property only on the southern side and, taking advantage of that location, and due to recent enmity and his old age, they attempted from 08.02.1996 to interfere with his peaceful possession.

4. Defendants’ Case in Brief: The defendants specifically denied the truth, validity and consideration of the alleged sale deed dated 20.03.1995 said to have been executed by Perumayi Ammal and others in favour of the plaintiff. It is averred that the said vendors had no right, title or competence to convey the suit property to the plaintiff, and therefore the plaintiff did not acquire any right over the suit property. The description of properties and the boundaries and the extent given for the suit properties in the plaint are all false and incorrect. The defendants also denied the plaintiff’s alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit property and stated that the kist receipts, chitta and adangal copies filed along with the plaint are false and fabricated. They further contended that the description, boundaries and extent of the suit property are incorrect. It is also stated that the first defendant had already filed O.S. No.79 of 1996 against the present plaintiff and his son in respect of properties in S. Nos.111/1B and 111/1A, and that by suppressing the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff has filed the present suit and is attempting to trespass into the defendants’ properties on the strength of an ex parte interim injunction. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

5. Issues and Evidence before Courts below: The trial Court originally framed issues on declaration, injunction and relief. Later, the issues were recast as follows: whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of 45 cents in the suit survey number; whether such possession is interfered with by the defendants; and to what relief the plaintiff is entitled. Before the Trial Court the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A10. The defendants examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.B1 to B5. Before the first appellate Court, Ex.B6, was produced and marked as additional document at the appellate stage.

6. Findings of the Courts below: The Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiff had established possession over the suit property in Survey No.111/8 , while rejecting the defendants’ attempt to connect the property with Survey No.111/1B and the earlier suit in O.S.No.79