IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN O.S.A.Nos.45 and 46 of 2010 in M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2010 1. S.Srinivasan 2. Smt.S.Logeswari ..Appellants in both the OSAs./Plaintiffs Vs. 1. N.Leelavathy 2. N.Govindarajan 3. Ramadevi 4. R.Vijayalakshmi 5. S.Vasanthi 6. V.Maheswari ..Respondents in both the OSAs./Defendants Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S.Rules against the order dated 27.7.2009 made in Application Nos.439 and 440 of 2008 in C.S.No.399 of 2008 by the learned single Judge of this Court. For Appellants : Ms.P.T.Asha for Mr.G.S.Santhanakrishnan COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) These two intra courts appeal challenge the common order of the learned single Judge made in O.A.Nos. 439 and 440 of 2008 seeking interim injunctions restraining the defendants from alienating the property and also from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs, pending the suit. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellants and looked into the materials available on record including the order under challenge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. As could be seen from the available materials on record it is seen that a suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the sale deed dated 5.12.1975 registered before the Sub- Registrar, T.Nagar is not binding on the plaintiffs and for cancellation of the said document and consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The original applications viz., O.A.Nos.439 & 440 of 2008 were filed seeking the above said reliefs. Notice was ordered on the said two applications and the respondents have also appeared. On enquiry, the applications were dismissed. Hence, these appeals before this Court. 4. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants the learned counsel would submit, in the instant case, the property originally belonged to one Subramania Mudaliar and the appellants inherited the said property. In order to show that they are in possession of a part of the property, they have produced sufficient documents. They relied upon the nativity certificate, election identity card and family ration card. Apart from that, the learned counsel would point out that there were proceedings pending between the appellants and the third party in the year 1975, in which, the appellants were shown as the landlords in respect of the very same property. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that a prima facie case was made out by the appellants as they are in possession of the suit property. Insofar as the defendants were concerned, they relied upon the document of sale which is under challenge and the same was sought to be set aside as null and void and not binding on the appellants/plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, the appeals have got to be admitted and the matter has to be enquiry into. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that these appeals do not require any admission in the hands of the Court. 6. The case of the appellants is that the property originally belonged to one Subramania Mudaliar who derived title of property and his family were in possession of a part of the property. Now, the document which were relied upon by them is the nativity certificate, election identity card and family ration card. The learned single Judge has pointed out the reason, why the above said documents could not be relied upon in paragraph 4 of the order which reads as follows: "4. These documents genuineness were strongly refuted. Ms.Chitra Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the second defendant has filed a typed set of papers in which she had produced letters received from the Tahsildar, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk, dated 15.11.2006 stating that the nativity certificate was not issued by their office. She had also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ filed a letter from the Assistant Commissioner, Thousand Lights Zone, dated 18.12.2006 stating that the Family ration card referred to by the plaintiffs were not issued by their office. Further, a letter was also produced from the Public Information Officer, Corporation of Chennai, dated 22.03.2007 stating that the Election Commissioner has not issued the EPIC Card in favour of the second plaintiff. These answers were received from the respective officers on making queries under the RTI Act." The Court is of the opinion that the reason adduced by the learned single Judge is correct. No evidentiary value could be attached unless and until there is proper appreciation of the documents which could be made only by oral evidence thereon. 7. In the instant case, the plaintiffs came forward to state that the alleged sale deed executed by them in the year 1975 was null and void and would not bind on them but they are not able to putforth any explanation as to how the remaining part of the property went to the hands of the defendants. The daughter of the first plaintiff/first appellant herein who is the the second plaintiff/second appellant herein, filed a suit before the City Civil Court in O.S.No.4354 of 2005 against the second defendant/second respondent herein and the same is also pending. Equally, the second defendant also filed a suit against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.335 of 2008 which is also pending. Both the suits are for permanent injunction against each other and while both the suits are pending, the instant suit has been filed. The learned single Judge is perfectly correct in coming to a conclusion that it is not a fit case where an injunction, not to interfere with the possession, could be granted and dismissed the same. The judgment of the learned single Judge does not require any disturbance in the hands of the Court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the suit may be disposed of early. Therefore, the trial Judge is required to take up the matter for trial and dispose it of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vsi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras. + 4 c.cs. to Mr. G. Santhanakrishnan, Advocate. S.R.No.13335. OSA.Nos.45 & 46 of 2010 NG (CO) GSK 12.03.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/