GRACE SAMUEL Vs. RANI ALIAS PORKILAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant/Defendant has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 21.10.1998 in A.S.No.58 of 1996 passed by the Learned Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.10.1995 in O.S.No.868 of 1992 passed by the Learned First Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.

(2.) THE First Appellate Court, viz., the Learned Second Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.58 of 1996, has observed that "trespasser is a person in wrongful possession, who has hostile animus against the person, who is entitled to legal possession of the property. By no stretch of imagination, the Respondents can be called as trespassers of the Suit property because, they claim title to the property on the basis of the Agreement for Sale and produce documents prima facie to prove the same. Since they have legal basis to fortify their possession, they cannot be considered as trespassers. THErefore, they would be entitled to perpetual injunction against the Appellant. If the Appellant has got valid title to the property, it is for him to sue the Respondents for eviction. Likewise, if the Respondents seek to enforce the Agreement for sale on the basis of Exs.14 and 15, they will have to file a Suit for Specific Performance. In this bare Suit for injunction, the Respondents having proved their legal possession of the Suit property would be entitled for perpetual injunction till they are legally evicted therefrom" and resultantly, the First Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal with costs, thereby confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 25.10.1995 in O.S.No.868 of 1992 passed by the Learned I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.

(3.) AT the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following Substantial Question of Law has been formulated for determination: "Whether the Courts are precluded from going into the question of prima facie title while granting relief of permanent injunction based on possession?" The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on Substantial Question of Law :