IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.04.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. C.S.KARNAN C.M.A.No.2270 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 1.D.Srinivasan 2.S.Rajendran 3.D.Vijayanand 4.S.Devi 5.P.Mahendiran .. Appellants/Defendants 2 to 6 Vs 1.Reverent J.Jai Singh .. Respondent 1/Plaintiff 2.Ammasi @ Amavasai Gounder .. Respondent 2/Defendant No.1 Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(R) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, against the Decree and Order, dated 29.07.2009, made in I.A.No.36 of 2009 in O.S.No.32 of 2009, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore. For appellants : Mr.R.Subramanian, S.C., for M/s.Hemalatha For respondents : Mrs.K.Muthuramalingam for R1 Mr.R.Natarajan for R2 J U D G M E N T The appellants herein are the respondents in I.A.No.36 of 2009 and the defendants 2 to 6 in the suit in O.S.No.32 of 2009, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Vellore. The first respondent is the petitioner in I.A.No.36 of 2009 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.32 of 2009. The second respondent is the first respondent in I.A.No.36 of 2009 and the first defendant in O.S.No.32 of 2009. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.36 of 2009 praying to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants etc. from putting up any construction over the schedule mentioned property or any portions thereof till the disposal of the suit under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and 151 C.P.C. 2.The short facts of the case are as follows: The first respondent/plaintiff entered into a sale agreement with the second respondent/first defendant on 09.07.1998 to purchase a land, measuring an extent of 20 Cents in Survey No.147/2 of Sathuvacheri Village, Vellore Taluk. At the time of sale agreement, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as an advance. As per agreement, the plaintiff approached the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, for execution of sale deed as per the sale agreement dated 09.07.1998. Along with the suit, the first respondent/plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the appellants/respondents/defendants from interfering with the suit property. In the said suit as well as the injunction application, the appellants/defendants had filed a counter statements and written statements and resisted the claim of the plaintiff. 3.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore was pleased to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the said rights of the petitioner/plaintiff, as per Ex.P1, agreement, with respect to the suit property. Further, the learned Judge ordered that the respondents or any other persons are not entitled to carry out any sort of construction over the suit property and that if any person interferes with the property, the petitioner/plaintiff will be at liberty to approach the Police Station to prevent such activity. Accordingly, the interim order was granted till the disposal of the suit. 4.Aggreived by the said order and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.36 of 2009, in O.S.No.32 of 2009 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, the appellants/respondents/defendants 2 to 6, have filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal praying to set aside the order and decreetal I.A.No.36 of 2009 in O.S.No.32 of 2009, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore. 5.The learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that the Trial Court granted an interim injunction against the appellants/defendants 2 to 6, who are genuine purchasers and title holders of the suit property. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that the suit for the specific performance filed by the first respondent/plaintiff against the second respondent/first defendant is based on the false and forged agreement, which has not been signed by the second respondent/first defendant. The learned Judge had filed to consider an earlier suit in O.S.No.118 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vellore. As such, the first respondent/plaintiff could not get any interim order. As such, the interim injunction granted is an abuse of process of Court. The learned counsel has raised a vital point that the first respondent/plaintiff is not in possession of the property and at the same time, the possession of the property is only with the appellants/defendants 2 to 4. But, the learned Judge had wrongly come to a conclusion that the first respondent/plaintiff is in possession. 6.In the decision Kasim Maraikkayar & another v. Haji Kathija Beevi Trust & another, reported in 2008-1-L.W.303, The Hon'ble Madras High Court has held as follows: "C.P.C., Order 39, Rule 1, 'Injunction, Practice/Judgment of Court should contain reasons https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ – Suit for injunction instituted by Wakf in which I.A. Was filed for the same relief and court passed order granting Injunction stating that as the petitioners have prima facie proved their possession, the injunction petition is allowed and the injunction is made absolute – Held: it is not stated in so may words as to how the court has arrived at a conclusion with regard to the prima facie case in favour of the petitioners so as to grant injunction till the disposal of the case. While deciding the lis between the parties, Courts cannot put the parties in darkness about the materials which weighed with the court in arriving at the conclusion – Parties to the proceeding should not have a feeling that his case has not been understood by the court in its proper perspective. Para 9 If the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision – Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Para 11 " 7.The learned counsel for the first respondent vehemently argued that that the sale agreement dated 09.07.1998 was duly executed by the second respondent/first defendant. From the date of agreement, the plaintiff is in possession as per the agreement clause. At the time of agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as an advance and part of sale consideration. Besides this, the plaintiff extended his co-operation to the vendor/second respondent/first defendant to get legal remedy for the said vendor, who was facing litigation over the said property. The learned counsel further argued that the plaintiff had produced seven vitally important documents to prove his case, out of which, the sale agreement executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 09.07.1998 has been marked as Ex.P1. It has been pointed out that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, after well considering the plaintiff's case and connected documents thereon as well as the counter statements and written statements of the respondents/defendants, has passed the interim injunction order, after a prima facie case was made by the plaintiff. In the said impugned order, there is no error and it is a well-considered order. As such, the learned counsel has prayed to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. 8.The learned counsel for the second respondent argued that the suit property was allotted to one Lakshmi on 17.10.1988, by the Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nadu Housing Board. Subsequently, the order was cancelled on 09.10.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the said Lakshmi/allottee, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3099 of 2004. The same was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the said Lakshmi preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.455 of 2008, which is also a subject matter of the said property. The writ appeal was also dismissed on 10.04.2008. The learned counsel for the second respondent has vehemently argued that the second respondent/Lakshmi also has rights over the property. The learned counsel, in support of his case, has filed additional typed set of papers, wherein details regarding communications between the said Lakshmi and the Housing Board has been shown. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, order and decreetal order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, passed in I.A.No.36 of 2009 in O.S.No.32 of 2009, dated 29.07.2009 and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is of the view that in the said suit, there is a title dispute over the said property. The first respondent/plaintiff has claimed rights as per the agreement dated 09.07.1998 entered with the first defendant. The other defendants have claimed rights over the said property on the strength of sale deeds bearing registration Nos.13243 of 2008 and 13244 of 2008, which has been executed by the first defendant to and in favour of the fifth defendant and defendants 2 to 4 respectively. Another document dated 09.02.2009 was executed by the defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the sixth defendant. Besides this, physical possession of the suit property is also in dispute. The title of the suit property and possession of the suit property has to be decided after framing necessary issues. Hence, the suit is a triable one. Therefore, this Court directs the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore to dispose the case in O.S.No.32 of 2009 on merits, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 10.On 12.08.2009, this Court granted status-quo, the same will continue to be in force till the disposal of the suit in O.S.No.32 of 2009, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore. 11.In the result, the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of as observed above and the Order and Decreetal Order dated 29.07.2009, in I.A.No.36 of 2009 in O.S.No.32 of 2009, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, is modified. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ krk To The Additional District and Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore. Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. C.M.A.No.2270 of 2009 SV(CO) RVL 13.05.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/