1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA O.A.No.1216 of 2009 in C.S.No.1048 of 2009 1. G.Venkataraman, S/o.K.Guruvan, Old No.78, New No.10-B, Kannagi Street, Anna Nedumpathai, Avvai Nagar, Choolaimedu, Chennai-94. 2. K.Guruvan, S/o.Kannu, No.27, R.V.S.Nagar, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore N.T., Cuddalore District. ..Applicants/Plaintiffs. Vs. 1. N.Rajeswari W/o.G.Venkataraman, Old No.78, New No.10-B, Kannagi Street, Anna Nedumpathai, Avvai Nagar, Choolaimedu, Chennai-94. 2. M.Narayanan, S/o.P.N.Munusami, No.2/89, Thanikachalam Street, Govindarajan Nagar, Otteri Bagayam, Vellore. ..Respondents/Defendants. Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an interim injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from interfering with 1st Applicants peaceful possession and enjoyment in the Superstructure built up by his father, the 2nd plaintiff on the 'B' schedule land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 morefully described hereunder either by the 2nd defendant or by his agent or servant or anybody claiming any right through him in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit. This Original Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing the court made the following order: The applicants / plaintiffs have filed a suit, for declaration that the superstructure on the 'B' Schedule land belongs to Thiru G.Venkataraman absolutely, with consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from disposing of the superstructure on the 'B' Schedule property or interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the first plaintiff of the superstructure on the 'B' Schedule land or otherwise meddle with it in any manner whatsoever either by the defendants themselves or by their agents or servant or anybody claiming any right through them in any manner whatsoever. 2.The first plaintiff is husband of the first defendant having married her on 5th July, 2000 at Vellore. The second defendant is the father of the first defendant, who is a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police. Out of the wedlock of the first plaintiff and the first defendant, a female child named Keerthana was born. 3.The second defendant had purchased a piece of land measuring 3612 sq.ft., bearing plot No.10, Kannagi Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai, duly described under 'A' Schedule to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the plaint. 4.The second defendant transferred the land measuring 1680 sq.ft to the first defendant on 13.03.2003 for their residence and possession, described as 'B' Schedule in the plaint, and handed over to its possession the plaintiffs. 5.The second plaintiff is said to have constructed two storied building on the 'B' Schedule land with ground and first floor measuring about 1225 sq.ft each and two balconies of 62.5 sq.ft at the first floor. The building also has a room and toilet. The total cost of construction is said to be Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs only). The construction is said to have been supervised by the second defendant. 6.The plaintiffs claim that mother of the first plaintiff contributed Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by cheque and another Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs only) was sent by the first plaintiff by selling his share of the property at Ramdass Naidu Street, Cuddalore. He also contributed additional sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) by selling the cars. 7.The second plaintiff also contributed Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Laksh only) out of his pensionary benefits, whereas a loan of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) was taken against security of 'B' Schedule land. 8.It is also submitted that additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) was contributed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 sale of ornaments. Avernebts are also made with regard to the construction carried out for the building. 9.Due to misunderstanding between the first plaintiff and the first defendant, a report was lodged against the plaintiffs, which, according to the plaintiffs, was false. This resulted in mental agony to the plaintiffs. 10.It is the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that the defendant no.1 refused to rejoin him in his new temporary residence at No.23, Surya Flats, Kamaraj, 3rd Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai, and that the first defendant has occupied the house constructed by him from the funds of the first plaintiff and his parents. The apprehension that the second defendant is trying to dispose off the property, is also pleaded. 11.The plaintiffs / applicants filed the present application for grant of injunction, restraining the second defendant from interfering with the first plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the superstructure built by his father on the 'B' Schedule land. The plaintiffs in support of the case have placed on record xerox copy of the cheque issued in favour of defendant no.1. 12.The application is contested on the ground that the property belongs to defendant no.2 and the building thereon was raised by the defendant no.1. 13.On consideration, this Court finds nothing has been placed on record, showing encashment of the cheque. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 settlement deed placed on record also shows that the plaintiffs have no title to the property in dispute. The loan agreement with the Bank is also in favour of the defendant no.1, though the first plaintiff is shown as a party being the husband. 14.Once it is not disputed that the land belongs to the defendants, the plaintiffs cannot seek injunction, restraining defendants from using the property. Even if, for the sake of argument, the superstructures are taken to be that of plaintiffs, still they can claim to remove the superstructure, but plaintiffs certainly cannot seek permanent injunction. it is also admitted case of plaintiffs that the property is in possession of defendant no.1. 15.The plaintiffs / applicants have failed to make out any prima facie case, nor the balance of convenience can be said to be in favour of the plaintiffs / applicants. The applicants / plaintiffs are also not likely to suffer any irreparable loss or injury, as disposal of the superstructure can only give right to recover the price thereof. 16.No merits. Dismissed. No costs. Sd/-V.K.S.J 13.10.2011 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2011. R.s/23.11.2011 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/