In a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving actual possession of the specific suit survey number; reliance on ambiguous tax receipts that do not reference the contested land, especially regarding government poramboke property, is insufficient to establish possession.

J U D G M E N T

The unsuccessful defendants in the suit are the appellants. The respondent herein filed a suit for bare injunction. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. On appeal filed by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and granted decree for permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have come before this Court.

2. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the appellants/defendants are his relatives. The 1^st defendant is his brother. The 2^nd defendant is the son of 1^st defendant and the 3^rd defendant is the wife of 1^st defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that he owned property on the east and south of the suit S.No.26/4, which is a Paattai Poramboke. He purchased the property situated on the north of the suit property in S.No.42/2B from one Padmanaban on 19.04.2010. The said Padmanaban enjoyed the suit property along with his property on the Northern Side. At the time of selling the suit property to the plaintiff, his vendor handed over possession of the suit property also to the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with his Patta Property on the north-south and east of the suit property. The defendants without having no manner of right over the suit property attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction.

3. The defendants filed written statement and denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It was the specific case of the defendants that the suit property is a Pattai Poramboke and the same has been enjoyed by the defendants by laying pipeline to take water to their lands situated nearby. It is also stated that the 3^rd defendant-Ranganayagi Ammal purchased 15 cents in S.No.26/1 and 18 cents in S.No.26/2 which are situated on the Northern Side of the suit property. It was also stated that the 1^st defendant owns property on the southern side of the suit property in S.No.26/6. Therefore, according to the defendants, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by laying pipeline in the suit property and sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and one Venkatesan was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the plaintiff, 4 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A4. The 1^st defendant was examined as DW.1 and 3 documents were marked on the side of the defendants as Exs.B1 to B3. The Trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner and his report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.

5. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over the suit property and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred first appeal in A.S.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and granted a decree for permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have come before this Court.

6. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial question of law for consideration, by order dated 21.10.2024:-

“1.Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in reversing the Judgment of the Trial Court based on the evidence and documentary proof adduced on the side of the defendants?

2.Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in reversing the Judgment, by misreading the evidence of P.W.2, who is the Vendor of the plaintiff regarding admission of enjoying the suit land by laying pipe line and irrigating adjacent lands by the defendants?”

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appell