R C CHURCH Vs. K SEERANGA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant herein. THE plaintiff is the respondent. THE respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction stating that the suit property was originally purchased by his father under a registered sale deed dated 25.11.1940 and after his death, he was in possession of the property and enjoying the same without any interruption and the appellant/defendant is the owner of the land adjacent to the suit property and he has no right over the suit property.THE respondent/plaintiff enquired with the revenue officials and came to know that in the revenue records, the suit property is described as Madhakovil Promboke. THEreafter he applied to the Sub Collector, Namakkal for granting patta in respect of the suit property and the Sub Collector, Namakkal, after conducting enquiry, passed an order dated 03.04.1996 granting patta in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for the suit property. THEreafter, he also applied for cancellation of the entry of the suit property made in the revenue records as poromboke and the suit property in S.No.322/6 was subdivided as S.Nos.322/6A and 322/6B and the patta was issued in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in respect of S.No.322/6A by an order dated 24.05.1996. While so, the appellant/defendant attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property. Hence, the present suit.

(2.) THE appellant/defendant contested the suit disputing the claim of the plaintiff over the suit property and he has stated that the suit property has been mentioned in the revenue records as Madhakovil Promboke and by suppressing the same, the respondent/plaintiff has got patta in respect of the suit property and the respondent/plaintiff has no title whatsoever to the suit property and even according to the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff's father did not get full right over the suit property. THE respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to get the relief of injunction.

(3.) HE further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff also admitted in his evidence that after subdivision, he attempted to take possession of the property and that was prevented by the appellant/defendant and thereafter he filed a suit for injunction and contended that having regard to the admission of the respondent/plaintiff that he was prevented while taking possession, the courts below ought to have held that the respondent/plaintiff was not in possession of the property on the date of filing of the suit and ought to have dismissed the suit. HE further contended that when the title is seriously disputed, without a prayer for declaration of title, the suit filed for bare injunction is not maintainable.