IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.11.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA O.A.Nos.668 & 669 of 2011 in C.S.No.538 of 2011 ORDER This order shall dispose off O.A.Nos.668 and 669 of 2011. O.A.No.668 of 2011  To grant ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants herein, their men, agents or sub ordinates or any person/s, claiming through them, from in any manner, alienating, encumbering or dealing with or altering the physical features of the suit schedule property pending disposal of the suit O.A.No.669 of 2011  To grant an order of ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants herein, their men, agents or sub ordinates from in any manner disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff / applicant has filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 21.02.2007, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the second defendant, registered as Document No.460/2007 in the office of the Sub Registrar at Mylapore, Chennai and to declare the sale deed dated 21.04.2011, executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the third defendant, registered as Document No.981/2011, in the office of the Sub Registrar at Mylapore, as null and void. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction, restraining defendants from in any manner disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. 3. Prayer is also made for permanent injunction, restraining defendants from in any manner alienating, encumbering or dealing with or altering the physical features of the suit schedule property . 4. The suit property originally belonged to Smt.Sasi Subramanian, w/o. Subramanian and Shyam Sundar, s/o. Subramaniam. The property was purchased by deed of sale dated 15.12.1965. The said Sasi Subramanian and her son Shyam Sundar sold the property to one S.V.Duraisingam and Smt.N.Visalam vide sale deed dated 30.04.1982, registered as Document No.1016/1982 with the SRO, Mylapore, Chennai. 5. The said N.Visalam and Duraisingam sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff by deed of sale dated 05.03.1987, registered as Document No.11/1987 with the SRO, Mylapore, Chennai. 6. The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant had requested the plaintiff to offer his property as collateral security for obtaining a loan from Indian Bank. The request was accepted and collateral security was created in favour of the Indian Bank, Mylapore Branch. The first defendant, due to heavy loss in his business, could not pay back the loan. 7. The first defendant approached the plaintiff that in order to avoid the property being auctioned, it be pledged with some private financiers, who would settle the loan of the Bank, and that the first defendant would settle the private financiers' liability and redeem the property of the plaintiff. 8. The case of the plaintiff is that the private financier agreed to settle the loan of the Bank, provided sale deed was executed in favour of the private financier, on the condition that on repayment of loan, the sale deed would be cancelled. It was on only this assurance that the plaintiff had executed the sale deed. 9. The plaintiff thereafter, on failure of defendant no.1 to settle the amount of the private financier, created a collateral security with another financier. On receipt of amount, the first financier executed deed of cancellation of sale deed. The plaintiff, thereafter, executed a sale deed in favour of the second financier, as collateral security. 10. It is the case of the plaintiff that in violation of the agreed terms, the property has been sold to respondent no.4 vide sale deed dated 21.04.2011. The defendant no.4 thereafter issued a notice, stating therein that the plaintiff was tenant in the premises. She asked the plaintiff to vacate the premises. The plaintiff also claimed that he was threatened with eviction. The plaintiff showed his willingness to settle a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) payable to the second defendant to save his property. 11. Notice of applications was issued. Learned counsel for the defendants stated that defendants have already initiated eviction proceedings by filing Rent Control Original Petition. The very fact that a petition has been filed for eviction of the plaintiff by following due process of law, wherein the plaintiff / applicant will have full opportunity to contest the petition to save his possession, therefore, O.A.No.669 of 2011 has been rendered infructuous, as defendants are following due process of law, and not interfering with the possession of the plaintiff illegally. 12. As regards O.A.No.668 of 2011 is concerned, in view of the admitted position that the plaintiff had executed the registered sale deed and the vendee in turn executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no.4, there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff / applicant to claim injunction against alienating, encumbering or altering of property, as the rights of the applicant / plaintiff are fully protected under the principles of "lis pendens". It cannot be said that the plaintiff / applicant will suffer irreparable loss or injury, if the injunction, as prayed, is declined. 14. Consequently, O.A.No.668 of 2011 is dismissed. No costs. ar