The revision petitioner herein is the first appellant in the appeal and the 2nd respondent is the 2nd appellant. The appellants filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2014 made in O.S.No.88 of 2010 by the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai. The suit property originally belonged to one Muthusamy Naidu. After his death, his second wife Muthammal and her son Pitchai @ Narayanasamy inherited the property and they were in enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, on 13.02.1978, the said Muthammal executed a settlement deed in favour of her son Pitchai @ Narayanasamy and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the entire property. The said Pitchai @ Narayanasamy executed a registered will on 17.11.1994 bequeathing the entire property to his grandson Srinivasan and after the death of Pitchai @ Narayanasamy, the said Srinivasan became the owner of the property. There are three shops in the suit property. The revision petitioner took lease of a shop in the year 1986 from Pitchai @ Narayanasamy and has been doing business therein. Subsequently, the revision petitioner purchased the shop under the sale deed dated 09.03.2007. The 2nd respondent has purchased another portion of the property.
2.While so, the 1st respondent herein who is the father of the said Srinivasan filed O.S.No.88/2010 against the revision petitioner, 2nd respondent and Srinivasan for 1/2 share in the suit property, in which, a preliminary decree was passed allotting 1/2 share to the 1st respondent, against which, the revision petitioner and 2nd respondent filed appeal in A.S.No.5/2014 which is pending at the fag end of arguments. The property purchased by the revision petitioner is an old building and due to rain, the entire building got damaged and it will fell down at any time and therefore, he took steps to carry out repair works in the shop which was prevented by the 1st respondent herein relying on the the decree passed in favour of him, wherein 1/2 share was allotted to him. The lower Court passed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from altering or encumbering the suit properties.
3.According to the appellants, they have no intention to alter the physical features of the building, but only to carry out the repair works and to preserve the building without any damage and unless repair works are carried out, the building will collapse and it will cause huge damage to the entire building. Hence, the revision petitioner and 2nd respondent filed I.A.No.125/16 for permission to carry out the repair works in the property, which was dismissed by the Court below, against which, this revision petition has been filed.
4.Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that due to rain, repair work is very much affected and he also produced the photographs regarding the general repair of the building. Learned counsel would also undertake that the revision petitioner will not claim any equity by carrying out the repair and the learned counsel for the respondents has agreed to the same, but would pray for early disposal of the suit.
5.In my considered opinion, the learned Judge is right in dismissing the interlocutory application. Hence, recording the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of permitting the revision petitioner to carry out the essential repair works. It is made clear that by doing the repair works, the revision petitioner will not be entitled to claim right over the property muchless right of equity under the guise of repair work over the property and the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, is directed to dispose of A.S.No.5 of 2015 on or before 31.01.2018. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the appeal proceedings. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The Principal District Court, Madurai.
.