P LAKSHMANAN Vs. P ARUMUGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S.No.2514 of 1993 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore are the appellants.

(2.) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction stating that the suit property and other properties belonged to the 4th defendant ancestrally and the total extent of the properties owned by the family was an extent of 60 x 90 feet and thereafter there was a partition in the family and in that partition the 1st plaintiff was allotted an extent of 60 x 30 feet of property and the 1st plaintiff constructed a house in that property and is enjoying the same. As the defendants attempted to interfere with the plaintiffs right to the suit property, the suit was filed for injunction.

(3.) MR. B.Soundarapandian, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the suit property belongs to the 1st appellant and therefore the concurrent finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the Second Appeals and the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit only on the ground that the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable in the absence of any declaration of title and the reasoning of the lower appellate Court that a suit for bare injunction without a prayer for declaration is not maintainable is against the Judgements rendered by this Court reported in 2007 (1) MLJ 827 (A.P.Kuppusamy v. P.Kumarapalayam Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, Tiruchengode Taluk) and 1997 (1) CTC 407 (Yadhavan and another v. Md. Dayanudin and two others) and even in a suit for bare injunction the Court can give incidental finding about the title and the suit cannot be thrown out on the ground that the relief of declaration was not sought for.