A suit for bare injunction is not maintainable when the plaintiff’s title is seriously disputed and a cloud is cast over ownership due to prior alienation, requiring a comprehensive suit for declaration.

JUDGMENT

1.The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.20 of 2017, dated 21.03.2019, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Aranthangi, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.224 of 1999, dated 14.09.2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and she filed the suit in O.S.No.224 of 1999 before the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi claiming permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from any manner interfering with the plaintiff's 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. The case of the plaintiff in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiff purchased the suit property, a vacant site, from Sathiah and others by virtue of a sale deed dated 29.04.1992 . She constructed a house in a portion of the property bearing Door No.6/47 and has been residing therein. She has been using the remaining vacant site as a backyard. Subsequently, the property was sub-divided as S.No.429-6A/1A and patta was issued in her favour. The defendants have no right, title or possession over the suit property at any point of time and are attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's possession. The defendants threatened the plaintiff on 20.08.1999 that they would forcibly evict her from the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for permanent injunction.

5. The defence of the first defendant, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiff purchased the vacant site on 29.04.1992 and constructed a terraced house and a titled house thereon. Subsequently, she sold the suit property together with the said houses to the second defendant under a sale deed dated 28.11.1996 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,89,400/-. The second defendant had taken possession of the suit property and she entered into a lease agreement dated 06.12.1996 with the plaintiff and thereby the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in respect of the tiled house. The second defendant leased out the terrace house portion to one Chellammal from 06.12.1996. After Chellammal vacated the terraced house, the plaintiff represented that the tiled house was insufficient for her family and requested permission to occupy the terraced house. Accepting the said request, the second defendant allowed the plaintiff to reside in the terraced house also as a tenant.

(b) The second defendant sold the suit property to the first defendant, vide sale deed dated 15.07.1999 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff approached the first defendant 15 days prior to the sale in favour of the first defendant and informed him that she would vacate the property within a month. Subsequently, the plaintiff allegedly started demanding a sum of Rs.25,000/- for vacating the property. The plaintiff has been residing in the terraced house only as a tenant under the first defendant, but suppressing the above material facts, has filed the above suit on false and frivolous allegations.

Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the pleadings of both parties framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the suit for permanent injunction without seeking a declaration of title in res