1. Suit for permanent injunction regarding land; title and identity disputed. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 89611
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Thirumagal Chandrasekar, J
Arumugam – Appellant
Versus
Chelliah – Respondent
SA(MD). No.680 of 2013 | MP(MD).No.1 of 2013
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Meenakshi Sundaram, D. Nallathambi
For the Respondents: No appearance
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Meenakshi Sundaram, D. Nallathambi
For the Respondents: No appearance
A suit for permanent injunction will fail if the plaintiff cannot establish the specific identity of the property (e.g., missing four boundaries) and fails to prove the antecedent title of the vendors, as a remand cannot be granted to fill such fundamental evidentiary lacunae.
Headnote:(A) Permanent Injunction - Identity of Property - Failure to provide four boundaries in the sale deed - Mere reference to survey number and extent is insufficient to establish identity when the location is seriously disputed. (Para 10, 17, 22)
(B) Title and Possession - Antecedent Title - A purchaser cannot claim a better title than that of the vendor; failure to establish the valid title of the vendor renders the sale deed insufficient to prove ownership. (Para 11, 18)
(C) Maintainability of Suit - Bare Injunction vs Declaration - While a suit for bare injunction is not invariably non-maintainable just because title is disputed, the plaintiff must still establish a valid right or settled possession over a specifically identified property to succeed. (Para 19, 20, 21)
(D) Procedural Law - Remand for filling lacuna - Remand for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner cannot be ordered to cure a fundamental defect in the plaintiff's case or to fill gaps in evidence regarding title. (Para 24)
Issues: Whether a suit for bare injunction is maintainable when the plaintiff fails to establish the identity of the suit property and the antecedent title of the vendors.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff claimed title via sale deed; defendant disputed genuineness and claimed property served as burial ground. (Para 2 )
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 16.11.2012 passed in A.S.No.24 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Ambasamudram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 27.01.2011 passed in O.S.No.79 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
(ii) According to the appellant/plaintiff, he had purchased an extent of 2 acres and 72 cents in Survey No.118/14 from one Rajagopalan and Annamalai Nadar under Ex.A1-Sale Deed dated 19.12.2007. According to him, pursuant to the said purchase, patta was transferred in his name and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by cultivating punja crops. It was his further case that, in May 2009, the respondent/defendant interfered with his peaceful possession and threatened him, particularly after the appellant/plaintiff refused to sell the property to him.
(iii) The respondent/defendant resisted the suit by disputing the title and possession claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. According to the respondent/defendant, Ex.A1-Sale Deed and the patta relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff were not genuine. The respondent claimed that an extent of 93 cents in Survey No.118, situated on the southern side of the larger extent, had been purchased for the purpose of providing a burial ground for the Ariyapuram Harijan Community and that the said property had been continuously used as a graveyard.
(iv) It was further contended by the respondent/defendant that the property claimed by the appellant/plaintiff was not properly identifiable, since Ex.A1-Sale Deed did not contain the four boundaries of the property. It was therefore contended that the appellant/plaintiff had failed to establish the identity of the suit property. The respondent also contended that, in view of the serious dispute regarding the title to the property, a mere suit for permanent injunction, without seeking the relief of declaration of title, was not maintainable.
v) During the trial, the appellant/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on his side. On the side of the respondent/defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.
6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Trial Court dismissed the suit with costs by Judgment and Decree dated 27.01.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court by Judgment and Decree dated 16.11.2012. Hence, the present Second Appeal.
7. I have heard Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for Mr.D.Nallathambi, learned counsel for the appellant. Though the name of the respondent is printed in the cause list, none appeared on behalf of the respondent either in person or through counsel.
8. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the Courts below are correct in law in holding that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration merely because the defendant has disputed the plaintiff's title and set up a rival claim?
2. Whether the First Appellate Court committed an error of law in adjudicating upon the plaintiff's title and dismissing the suit on that basis without recording a specific finding on the identity and correlation of the suit property with the property covered under Ex.B1 dated 22.01.1979, when the identity of the property was itself a material issue in dispute?
9. The ap
