Permanent injunction requires proof of the suit property’s existence and precise identity.

The plaintiffs claimed that an extent of 11.965 cents in Survey No. 456/3B had been allotted to the heirs of Gnanamuthu Nadar and later given to them.

They asserted possession, relying, among other things, on house-tax and kist receipts and a patta passbook, and sought a permanent injunction.

The defendants disputed the existence and identity of that separate parcel, contending that the claimed area formed part of an east-west road and that the property sold to the Christian Vellalar Sangam comprised the available land.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit; the First Appellate Court reversed that decision and granted an injunction. The defendants appealed under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the plaintiffs established the existence and identity of the third-schedule property, including whether it was private land or Government poramboke.

2. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in granting an injunction despite the asserted alienation of the property to the Christian Vellalar Sangam.

3. Whether the Commissioner’s report, which stated that the claimed third item could not be identified as a separate parcel, undermined the injunction decree.

4. Whether the Second Appeal should be allowed.

The Court proceeded under Section 100 CPC, which governs second appeals and requires consideration of a substantial question of law.

It applied the principle that a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction over immovable property must establish the identity of the property and show that the possession claimed relates to the property described in the plaint.

Revenue records and tax receipts, without adequate proof of the specific property’s identity, survey particulars, boundaries and extent, do not by themselves establish title or lawful possession over that property.

No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

The plaintiffs did not satisfactorily establish how the claimed 11.965 cents remained after the conveyance of 1 acre 10 cents to the Sangam, or when and how the disputed extent was allotted or transferred to them.

The revenue records raised doubt about whether the land was a separate patta property, while the Commissioner could not identify a separate parcel matching the plaint description and reported that the disputed area lay in the area claimed as railway-harbour poramboke and/or road.

Because the plaintiffs failed to prove the identity of the land to which their alleged possession related, the First Appellate Court’s injunction could not stand.

It allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree, and restored the Trial Court’s dismissal of the suit.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.