Can an unlawful occupant seek a permanent injunction against the true owner of the property?

This Second Appeal is filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dated December 10, 2002 passed in A.S. No.8 of 2000 by 'the Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated June 30, 2000 passed in O.S. No.986 of 1989 by 'the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri. ' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was reversed.

During the pendency of this Second Appeal, the original sole appellant - Mr.R.Durai, who was the plaintiff in the Suit, passed away. Consequently, his legal heirs / legal representatives were brought on record as Appellant Nos.2 to 4.

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit. PLAINTIFF'S CASE

According to the plaintiff, he is a tenant in respect of the suit property and has been in possession and enjoyment thereof for more than ten years. Prior to the Suit, a licence was issued in his favour for running a welding industry under the name and style of "Durai Engineering Works". The plaintiff claims that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a tenant.

The first defendant before his demise filed a written statement denying the allegations set out in the plaint, especially the plaintiff's alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than ten years. According to the first defendant, he is the owner of the suit property. He had permitted his brother - Sidhanandam to run a petty / bunk shop in the south-western corner of the suit property. However, Sidhanandam along with one Duraisamy from Bangalore [not the plaintiff] were jointly running a welding shop in the name of "Durai Engineering Works". The suit property was never rented out to the plaintiff as alleged.

Defendants 2 to 9 did not file any written statement / additional written statement.

Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as sought for in the plaint? 3. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?"

On June 23, 1993, the following issue was framed as additional issue: "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards total cost incurred for filing the Suit?"

At trial, on the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff - Durai was examined as P.W.1 and one Sathyanarayanan was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.16 were marked. On the side of the defendants, seventh defendant - Umapathy was examined as D.W.1 and Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.4 were marked.

The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had satisfactorily established that he had been running a welding industry in the suit property for more than ten years. The Trial Court further observed that, even while assuming that the first defendant disputed the plaintiff's right to remain in possession of the suit property, it was incumbent upon them to seek his eviction only through due process of law. Holding that the plaintiff was in settled possession of the suit property and that such possession cannot be disturbed otherwise than in accordance with law, the Trial Court found him entitled to the relief sought for. Accordingly, the Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, Defendants Nos.7 to 9 preferred Appeal before the First Appellate Court. Upon hearing the submissions made on either side and upon re- appreciation of the evidence available on record, the First Appellate Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Administrative Officer, Arulmighu Vembadi Vinayagar Temple -vs- Vasantha Kamatchi, reported in 2001 (2) T.L.N.J. 279 and held that the plaintiff was in wrongful possession of the suit property and therefore, was not entitled to the equitable relief of permanent injunction. On such finding, the First Appellate Court allowed the Appeal Suit, reversed the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and consequently dismissed the Original Suit.

Feeling aggrieved, the first respondent / plaintiff therein has preferred this Second Appeal, which was admitted on June 3, 2003 on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit and should it not have appreciated that a person in possession is entitled to be protected by an order of injunction even as against a true owner? (2) Could any person in possession be evicted or dispossessed except without recourse to due process? (3) When the issue as regards title between Siddanathan and the defendants is pending adjudication before the High Court in S.A. No.550 of 2002, whether the lower appellate Court is right in holding the first defendant had title to the suit property? (4) The defendants having admitted the plaintiff’s occupation of the suit property (Ex.A14), could they seek to remove the plaintiff by illegal means? (5) Whether the issue of landlord-tenant relationship is of any relevance for the grant of decree of permanent injunction against the aggressors of true owners and in directing them to take recourse through due process?"

Ms.V.Srimathi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants / legal representatives of the plaintiff, would submit that the plaintiff has been running a shop by name "Durai Engineering Works" in the suit premises as a tenant. The Director of Industries and Commerce, Madras, has issued a registration certificate dated May 27, 1986 to the same as a small scale industrial unit which can be found in Ex-A.9. From Ex-A.9, it could be seen that the plaintiff herein is running the said business in the suit premises.

Per contra, Mr.Arun Anbumani, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, would take this Court through the written statement averments and submit that first defendant had permitted his brother - Sidhanandam to run a bunk shop in a portion of the suit property. Taking advantage of the same, Sidhanandam colluded with the plaintiffs in the earlier Suit in O.S. No.28 of 1989 / Basavaraj's son and instigated the present plaintiff to file this false Suit with an ultimate view to usurp the suit property.

This Court has heard the submissions made on either side and perused the evidence available on record.

This Court has drawn the following genealogy chart showing the relationship between the defendants, some of whom were the plaintiffs in the earlier Suit in O.S. No.28 of 1989, for better appraisal of the facts of the case and the discussion:

The four sons of first defendant's brother - Basavaraj, namely Natrajan, Prasannaya, Mohan Kumar and Sampath Kumar were the plaintiffs in the aforesaid earlier Suit. The first defendant herein was also the first defendant therein. First defendant's brothers - Duraisamy and Sidhanandam were arrayed as defendants 2 and 3 respectively in the earlier Suit. The suit property therein and herein are more or less the same; while there is some difference in extent, there is no difference in identity and lie and location. To be noted, the said earlier Suit was originally filed in O.S. No.66 of 1984 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri, it was later transferred to the Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri and renumbered as O.S. No.28 of 1989. Thus, it could be seen that the issue regarding the suit property has been in existence as early as in 1984.

As it could be seen from Ex-B.4 - Judgment passed in the earlier Suit, the plaintiffs therein claimed title over the suit property (though described of lesser extent therein). The third defendant therein - Sidhanandam, who is the brother of the first defendant herein, filed a written statement, and the same was adopted by the other brother of first defendant herein arrayed as second defendant therein - Duraisamy. In their written statement, it has been stated that the plaintiffs therein had permitted the third defendant therein - Sidhanandam to put up a petty / bunk shop in a portion of the suit property, and it has further been stated that, the suit property belonged to the plaintiffs therein and accordingly, the defendants 2 and 3 therein namely Duraisamy and Sidhanandam expressed their no objection to decreeing the Suit in favour of the plaintiffs therein. Thus, it could be seen that Duraisamy and Sidhanandam were sailing along with the plaintiffs therein without supporting their brother / first defendant herein.

However, after full trial, the Trial Court therein dismissed the Suit holding that the first defendant had perfected title by way of adverse possession and consequently, the plaintiffs therein are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for, vide Ex-B.4 - Judgment. The said verdict was confirmed upto the level of the High Court. This Court vide its Judgment dated March 18, 2026 passed in S.A. No.550 of 2002, has not only confirmed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court therein, but has also went on to record a specific finding that the first defendant herein had perfected title by way of adverse possession over the suit property and became its absolute owner. Hence, Substantial Questions of Law (3) pales into insignificance. As stated supra, the suit property herein and therein are pretty much one and the same. Their identity, lie and location are all the same. The only difference is the extent. In the said earlier Suit, the suit property has been described as measuring east-west 65 feet x north-south 42 feet while in this case, it has been described as measuring 60 feet x 60 feet. That alone, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would not stand as a hurdle in applying the first defendant herein's title by adverse possession declared in the earlier Suit proceedings, to the present suit property. From the above, it is clear that the suit property is owned by the first defendant herein.

The plaintiff claims to be a tenant in the suit premises. He did not specify about his land lord or under whom he was a tenant. He did not also mention anything about the period of tenancy or rate of rent. He did not deposit any rent due before the Court. The plaintiff has not produced any rental agreement between him and the real owner / first defendant herein. However, during trial, the plaintiff pressed into service Ex-A.16 - Rental Agreement, which was not originally filed along with the plaint. The same is an un-registered one. The said document would recite that first defendant's brother - Sidhanandam rented out an extent of 18 feet x 13 feet within the suit property in favour of the plaintiff herein to set up and run a petty / bunk shop for a period of three years for a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. Even while assuming it to be true and valid, there is no evidence available on record to show that the plaintiff ever paid the monthly rent of Rs.150/- under the rental agreement to Sidhanandam. If really the plaintiff is a bona fide tenant of a property having title dispute, he would have atleast deposited the alleged monthly rent before the Court after institution of the present Suit, but he did not do so. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff did not examine Sidhanandam to prove the alleged Rental Agreement and alleged payment of rent thereof.

Furthermore, about eight months prior to the present Suit, Ex-A.14 - Notice was issued by the first defendant herein stating that the plaintiff is in unauthorised possession of the suit property and calling upon him to either pay a monthly rent of Rs.500/- to first defendant or handover vacant possession of the suit property. Hence, the first defendant has followed due process of law to evict the plaintiff herein, who is a wrongful occupant. But the plaintiff herein neither paid rent nor handed over vacant possession of the suit property. This clearly shows that the plaintiff herein is neither bona fide person nor a tenant and has not approached this Court with clean hands. Substantial Questions of Laws (2) and (4) is answered accordingly. As regards Substantial Question of Law (5), firstly, the plaintiff herein is neither a tenant nor a lawful occupant and secondly, for that reason, he cannot seek injunction against the true owner. Substantial Question of Law (5) is answered accordingly.

In these circumstances, the case of the first defendant herein that he let his brother - Sidhanandam be in permissive possession of a portion of the suit property to set up a petty / bunk shop but Sidhanandam, in turn, unauthorisedly permitted or rented out the suit property in favour of the plaintiff herein; and that upon losing the earlier Suit proceedings, the first defendant's brother - Sidhanandam and other have instigated the present plaintiff to file the present Suit against the first defendant with an ulterior motive to usurp the suit property and harass the first defendant.

The earlier Suit was originally instituted in 1984. The registration certificate in Ex-A.9 is dated May 27, 1986. The present Suit was filed in December 1989. The Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, erroneously found that the plaintiff is in settled possession for a long time without sufficient evidence and went on to decree the Suit, which is not justifiable. The First Appellate Court rightly relied on Vasantha Kamatchi's Case [cited supra] to hold that the present plaintiff being an unlawful occupant cannot seek permanent injunction against the first defendant here being the true owner of the suit property. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the First Appellate Court's Judgment and Decree. The Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Substantial Questions of Law (1) is answered accordingly.

In fine, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court are confirmed. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 21 / 09 / 2026