(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25th March 2025 made in A.S.No.230/2024 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.01.2024 made in O.S.No. 1790/2018 on the file of the XVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai and allow this Second Appeal.)

1. The defendants in a suit in O.S.No.1790 of 2018 are the appellants herein.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above said suit seeking permanent injunction and it was dismissed by the Trial Court. Challenging the findings of the Trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.230 of 2024 and it was allowed by the first appellate court by granting a decree for permanent injunction. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the defendants have filed the present second appeal before this court.

3. According to the respondent/plaintiff, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 21 years, without any disturbance. As per the plaint averments, originally, the suit property was allotted by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in favour of one Natarajan, who is the plaintiff’s husband’s grand father. In the said property, the plaintiff’s husband constructed a superstructure out of his own funds and also by selling the plaintiff’s sreedhana ornaments and it was rented out to the tenants. The plaintiff’s husband had been collecting the rents from the tenants till his death on 16.08.2012 and subsequently, rent has been collected by the plaintiff’s in-laws. After demise of the plaintiff’s husband, the defendants attempted to throw out the plaintiff from the suit property with the help of rowdy elements. In such circumstances, the suit was laid by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction.

4. The appellants/defendants filed a written statement and denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The averments made in the plaint as if the plaintiff’s husband had put up construction and had been collecting rent were denied by the defendants. According to them, originally, the suit property was allotted to one Rajammal by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and the said Rajammal sold it to one Natarajan and thereafter, the 1st and 2nd defendants purchased the same from the said Natarajan on 17.05.1996. It was further stated by the defendants that the said Natarajan again reiterated the sale by executing a document along with his wife in favour of the 2nd defendant on 06.05.1997 and from the date of purchase, the 2nd defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants further stated that the son of the defendants 1 and 2 married the plaintiff and he requested the 2nd defendant to accommodate him in the suit house. According to the defendants, considering the poor condition and also the interest of the kids, the 2nd defendant allowed the plaintiff’s husband to stay in the suit property temporarily. Unfortunately, the plaintiff’s husband died in a suspicious manner on 16.08.2012 and there was no smooth relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. Further, the plaintiff is trying to usurp the suit property by filing the said suit. On these pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and 8 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 on her side. On the side of the defendants, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced.

6. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence available on record, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.230 of 2024 on the file of XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The first appellate court, on reappreciation of evidence available on record, reversed the findings of the trial court and thus granted a decree for permanent injunction. Challenging the findings of the first appellate court, the defendants/ appellants have filed the present second appeal before this court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants would submit that the plaintiff failed to produce any document to show her title over the suit property and therefore, the first appellate Court ought not to have decreed the suit for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The learned counsel also submitted that the suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable, without a prayer for declaration of title.

8. It is seen from the pleadings of the defendants in their written statement that, they clearly admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It was the case of the defendants that the suit property was originally allotted to one Rajammal and she sold the same to one Natarajan and the said Natarajan sold it to the 2nd defendant. It was further stated by the defendants that the plaintiff being the daughter-in-law of the 2nd defendant, she was permitted to reside in the suit property. Therefore, physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is admitted by the defendants.

9. In order to prove the physical possession of the suit property, the plaintiff produced documents, like Aadhar card, official order sanctioning widow pension, bank pass book, gas connection bill, ration card and the death certificate of her husband etc. The first appellate court, considering the above said documents, recorded its findings that the suit property has been shown as the residential address of the plaintiff in Ex.A3 to Ex.A8 and therefore, by producing the Ex.A3 to Ex.A8, the plaintiff proved her physical possession over the suit property. The said documentary evidence along with the admission made by the defendants in the written statement proved the physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit property.

10. The defendants, though claimed right over the suit property, have not chosen to lead any oral and documentary evidence to prove the same. In the absence of any contra evidence, the first appellate court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved her physical possession over the suit property. The defendants have not produced any oral and documentary evidence to create any cloud over the title. Based on the possession of the plaintiff, she is entitled to maintain a suit for bare injunction. Further, in the absence of any evidence to show that the defendants are the real owners of the suit property, as a person in possession, the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction, without seeking a prayer for declaration of title. The first appellate court rightly appreciated the said position and decreed the suit for permanent injunction. I do not find any legal error in the said conclusion reached by the first appellate court. Therefore, both the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants are not appealable to this court.

11. Accordingly, the second appeal stands dismissed, affirming the findings of the first appellate court. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.