IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 09.03.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN CRP(PD)No.1070 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013 Selvam .. Petitioner Vs.
1.Arunai Sekar 2.Murugan 3.Ananthi 4.Punithavathi 5.Elumalai 6.Valli
7. Ganambal ..Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal Order dated 02.01.2013 in CMA.No.6 of 2012, on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai, confirming the Order and Decree in I.A.No.519 of 2011 in O.S.No.215 of 2011, dated 21.03.2012, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajan For Respondents : Mr.S.N.Ravichandran (for R1 to R7) O R D E R The unsuccessful plaintiff/petitioner is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner filed a suit against the respondents herein in O.S.No.215 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai for declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.519 of 2011 for interim injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.
2. According to the revision petitioner, the suit property originally belonged to government and it was assigned to one Muthulakshmi, W/o. Santhana Krishnan on 28.12.1974 by the Tahsildar, Tiruvannamalai. The petitioner herein has purchased the property from the said Muthulakshmi under a registered sale deed dated 19.06.1991. After purchase, the petitioner put up a basement for construction and he had also paid the property tax. Further, Patta and all the revenue records mutated to his name and he is in absolute possession and enjoyment over the suit property. The respondents herein have no right at all over the suit property, attempting to trespass into the same, since 31.07.2011. Hence the above suit and interim injunction application.
3. Whereas, the respondents herein contented that neither the petitioner nor his alleged vendor were never in possession and enjoyment over the suit property. The petitioner has not produced any document to prove his possession and the document No.3 is not relates to the suit property. That the property comprised in S.No.335/1 to an extent of 4.77 acres is called as Ellapillaiyar Kulam in the revenue records and the suit property is a portion of the above said S.No.335/1. There are nearly about 17 persons occupied the said property and constructed houses. The suit is bad for non-jointer of necessary party. Like other persons, Meenabai encroached upon a portion of S.No.335/1 and constructed house and in the revenue records her father name was found. In order to prove the same the respondents produced Adangal extract for S.No.335/1 for the Fasili 1396 and 1418. As per the said documents no assignment was given to the vendor of the petitioner viz. Muthulakshmi. The assignment relied on by the vendor is not genuine. This respondent’s Mother Ammaniammal purchased 0.63 ½ cents out of total extent of 2.53 acres in S.No.337 which is situated on the western side of the property in S.No.335/1.
4. In order to establish their case, the revision petitioner exhibited Exs-P1 to P8 and the respondents marked Exs-R1 to R3. The Trial Court upon considering the rival submission dismissed the interim injunction application by order dated 21.03.2012. Against which the revision petitioner filed appeal in C.M.A.No.6 of 2012 before the Sub- Court, Tiruvannamalai who also confirmed the order of the Trial Court by order dated 02.01.2013. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner has come up with this civil revision petition.
5. I heard Mr.G.Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.N.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 and perused the entire records.
6. The Learned Trial Judge while dismissed the interim injunction application held that the petitioner has failed to prove his lawful, continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit property through sufficient Evidence.
7. The Learned Trial Judge further held that the petitioner has not made out any prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also not in his favour. The petitioner has also not convinced the Trial Court with regard to the irreparable loss and hardship caused to him if interim injunction is not granted. It is a settled principle of law that the grant of interim injunction is a discretionary relief and the same cannot be granted mere asking for.
8. Further the Lower Appellant Court after analyzing the case of the revision petitioner and respondents come to the conclusion that there is a contradiction with regard to Ex-P1 Assignment Order dated 28.12.1974 and Ex-P2 Sale Deed dated 07.01.1975 related to survey number. The petitioner has not established that he has purchased the property assigned to Muthulakshmi under Ex-P1. The petitioner has not produced any other revenue records to prove his possession over the suit property and he has not made out any prima facie case for granting the relief of interim injunction.
9. It is to be seen that both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner has not proved his possession for granting the relief of interim injunction.
10. As the finding of the Courts below in disbelieving the plaintiff’s/revision petitioner’s version, about his exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit property is based on sufficient material and supported by proper reasoning and the same are not warranting interference by this Court.
11. For the forgoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have not committed any error in dismissing the injunction application filed by the revision petitioner. In fine, I could say that prima facie, the plaintiff/ revision petitioner has not been able to establish the foundation for the possession claimed by him. So, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders warrant no interference. According, the civil revision petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
12. In the result:
a) the civil revision petition is dismissed by confirming the order passed in C.M.A.No.6 of 2012, dated 02.01.2013, on the file of the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai, confirming the order in I.A.No.519 of 2011 in O.S.No.215 of 2011, dated 21.03.2012, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
b) the trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without giving any adjournment to either parties and both the parties are hereby directed to give their fullest co-operation for early disposal of the suit. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.03.2017
Note:Issue order copy on 19.04.2018 vs Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No To The Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs Pre-Delivery order made in CRP(PD)No.1070 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
09.03.2017