JUDGEMENT : 1. The Plaintiff, who lost its case before both the courts below, has filed this Second Appeal, against the judgement and decree, dated, 15.12.2020, passed in AS.No.1 of 2017, by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, confirming the judgement and decree, dated, 02.11.2016, passed in OS.No.343 of 2010, by the I Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam. 2. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is a Temple and it owns a Tank by name, Chandra Pushkarani, to an extent of 0.70 cents in RS.No.118 in front of the Temple and 49 cents in RS.No.117. There are several encroachments around the tank, in the form of huts. No action was taken on the petitions sent by the Plaintiff, seeking to remove the encroachment. However, the Defendants are attempting to give pattas to the encroachers. If the encroachment is not removed, procession of the Deity during festival days is not possible. A legal notice, dated 25.11.2005 was issued. The 1st Defendant had directed the 2nd Defendant to take action in this regard, but no action was taken. On 05.01.2010, another letter was sent to the 4th Defendant and the Joint Commissioner had also requested the 2nd Defendant to remove the encroachment, but, no action was taken. On 09.02.2010, the 2nd Defendant had directed the 3rd Defendant to grant patta to the encroachers, who have put up huts. In such circumstances, the suit has been filed, seeking a judgement and decree, restraining the Defendants from granting any patta to the encroachers. 3. The case of the Defendants, as set out in the written statement, filed by the 3rd Defendant and adopted by the Defendants 1, 2 and 4 is that a suit for mere permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants from granting of patta is not maintainable and that the civil court has no jurisdiction, regarding grant or refuse of patta, as it is barred under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act and that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Defendants, proceedings to issue patta regarding the suit property were dropped at present and hence, the suit claim becomes infructuous. In such circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Trial Court. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiff, Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked and PW.1 was examined. In such circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Trial Court. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiff, Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked and PW.1 was examined. On the side of the Defendants, DW.1 was examined. Both the courts below had dismissed the suit. Hence, this Second Appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff. 5. This Second Appeal was admitted, on the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether the courts below misconceived the provisions of Section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act, to non suit the Plaintiff? (b) Whether the courts below have committed an error in not applying the principles enshrined in Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act when the Defendants threatens to invade the Plaintiff' right to enjoyment of property for customary rituals and ceremonies by granting patta to the encroachers? (c) Whether the civil Court has no power to grant injunction against the Government to prevent multiplicity of proceedings that too when the Government has proposed to issue patta to the encroachers who have encroached upon the water body and the cart track? 6. The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that since the Defendants have taken steps to grant patta to the encroachers of the place belonged to the Temple, they should be restrained from doing so and that if the patta is granted, it would lead to suspension of celebrating the festivals in the temple and that the courts below have misconstrued the provisions of Section 14 of the Patta Pass Book Act, inasmuch as it provides power to the authority to make necessary changes in the records and also to resolve any dispute between the parties, only regarding the entries made in the records, but not to grant patta to the encroachers and that the said provisions can be invoked only after any entry made in the patta pass book and that the judgement of this Court, dated 28.03.2017 made in SA.No.232 of 2017 is not applicable to the case on hand and for such reasons, the impugned judgements are not sustainable. 7. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned Government Advocate for RR1-3 and considered the same and perused the materials available on record. 7. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned Government Advocate for RR1-3 and considered the same and perused the materials available on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. 8. There is no dispute that the suit property belonged to the Temple and that in and around the suit property, there are several encroachments by way of huts, put up by the encroachers. It is also not in dispute that the applications seeking patta given by the encroachers were pending consideration and that the proceedings for granting patta to the encroachers in respect of the suit property were dropped at present. 9. Invoking Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, both the courts below had non-suited the Plaintiff, by the impugned judgements, which are under challenge in this Second Appeal. Hence, it is appropriate to quote the Section 14 of the said Act, as under:- “14. Bar of suits – No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass book that is maintained under this Act or to have any such entry omitted or amended: Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta pass book under this Act, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the patta pass book shall be amended in accordance with such declaration.” 10. Section 14 of the said Act, bars a suit against the Government or any Officer of the Government in respect of a claim only in respect of an entry made in any patta pass book. In this case, admittedly, it is not the case of the Defendants that any entry in respect of the suit property is made in the patta pass book or even patta is granted. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the courts below has misconstrued the said provision and erroneously dismissed the suit. 11. In this case, admittedly, it is not the case of the Defendants that any entry in respect of the suit property is made in the patta pass book or even patta is granted. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the courts below has misconstrued the said provision and erroneously dismissed the suit. 11. In this case, the Plaintiffs apprehends that the Defendants are taking steps to issue patta to the encroachers. Though it is stated by the Defendants in the written statement that the patta proceedings were dropped at present, but, in future, there may be change of circumstances and hence, it cannot be presumed that in future, again they would not take any such proceedings. If patta is granted to the encroachers in and around the Temple and the lands pass into the hands of the undesirable persons, it would give rise to construction of buildings by the encroachers, which would cause hindrance and obstruction to the procession of the Deity and the festivals to be conducted during festival occasions and it would also spoil the whole atmosphere around the Temple and the sanctity and serenity of the Temple will be affected. In the interest of public, the precincts should also be protected. 12. Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, deals with the grant of perpetual injunction. Under Section 38(3), a perpetual injunction may be granted to the Plaintiff, when the Defendant invades or threatens to invade the Plaintiff's right or enjoyment of property, where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief and where the injunction is necessary to prevent multiplicity of judicial proceedings. 13. It is well settled that in a suit for injunction, the primary question to be considered is one of possession, on the date of filing of the suit and that a person in possession, though without title, can resist interference from another, who has no better title than himself and get injunction. In a case, where the allegations of a Plaintiff are that he is in lawful possession of the property and that his possession is threatened to be interfered and invaded by the Defendant, the Plaintiff is entitled to sue for a mere injunction without adding prayer for declaration of his rights. In a case, where the allegations of a Plaintiff are that he is in lawful possession of the property and that his possession is threatened to be interfered and invaded by the Defendant, the Plaintiff is entitled to sue for a mere injunction without adding prayer for declaration of his rights. It is not necessary for a Plaintiff, seeking injunction to prove his title and it would be suffice if he proves that he was in lawful possession of the same and his possession was invaded or threatened to be invaded by a person, who had no title whatsoever. 14. In this case, keeping in view the above reasons and settled principles, when admittedly the suit property belonged to the Temple and the title and possession of the suit property are not disputed by the Defendants and possession of the Plaintiff was threatened to be invaded by the Defendants, by way of issuance of patta to the encroachers, in the interest of justice and public and in order to maintain precincts, the possession of the suit property by the Plaintiff Temple is necessarily to be protected, by granting, a judgement and decree, as prayed for, which the courts below had miserably failed to do so and hence, the impugned judgements are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the Appellant. 15. In fine, this Second Appeal is allowed. No costs.