1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2011 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA O.A. No.1153 of 2010 in C.S. No.906 of 2010 1. Mrs.A.K.S.Sajitha Parveen New No.36, Old No.85, St.Xavier Street, Chennai-600 001. 2. Mrs.A.K.S.Zumruth Begum New No.36, Old No.85, St.Xavier Street, Chennai-600 001. ... Applicants/Plaintiffs -Versus- 1. S.Ravisundar, No.62, Second Cross, Mariyal Nagar, Puducherry-10. 2. S.Giri No.13/24, Nehru Street, Moopanar Nagar, Korukkupet, Chennai-600 021. 3. C.Nagan No.12, Arani Rangan Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021. 4. M.Kaleeswaran No.9/2, Mangamammal Lane, Seven Wells Chennai-600 001. 5. Sri Selva Vinayagar Koil Rep. by Trustees C.Venkatesan No.38, Thiruvika Street, Vasantharayanpalyam, Cuddalore. 6. C.Venkatesan, office at Thiruvika Street, Vasantharayanpalyam, Cuddalore. ... Respondents/Defendants https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant ad interim injunction restraining respondents each one of them their men, servant, agents, trustees, assignees or anyone through under each one of them from disturbing peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners rights over the plaint schedule property pending disposal of the main case. This Original Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing the court made the following order: This application has been filed by the applicants under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules, r/w Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim injunction, restraining respondents from interfering in their peaceful possession pending the suit. 2. The plaintiffs / applicants filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs / applicant, by pleading therein that they are the owners in possession of suit land, in pursuance to the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs / applicants. 3. The case set up by the plaintiffs / applicants, is that one of the Trustees of Sri Selva Vinayagar Koil, after permission from this Court, sold the property in dispute to the plaintiffs / applicants, for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 4. Thiru G.Ramamoorthy was held entitled to purchase the property being the highest offer, by this Court, either in his name or in the name of his nominees. 5. The plaintiffs / applicants were nominated by Thiru G.Ramamoorthy to get the sale deed executed in their names. 6. Sri Selva Vinayagar Koil had filed a suit C.S.No.273 of 1994, to challenge the sale in favour of the plaintiffs / applicants. Relief of Declaration was also prayed that Sri Selva Vinayagar Koil was the owner of the property in dispute. 7. Though the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, but the appeal was accepted and the sale in favour of the plaintiffs / applicants, was declared to be null and void, and not binding on the right of the Temple. The Temple was also held to be the owner of the property. 8. The plaintiffs / applicants, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, along with application for condonation of delay. 9. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, thereby upholding the judgment and decree. 10. The plaintiffs / applicants filed a Special Leave Petition, against the judgment and decree of this Court, which is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 11. The case of the plaintiffs / applicants is that on 22.10.2010, an attempt was made by the respondents to dispossess the plaintiffs / applicants from the disputed property, and further the attempts are being made by the defendants 1 & 2, to sell the property to defendants 3 & 4. 12. On the facts pleaded herein above, learned counsel for the plaintiffs / applicants vehemently contended, that once the plaintiffs / applicants are in possession of the property, it is not open to the defendants, to dispossess the applicants except with due process of law. This contention prima facie is not competent. After the sale deed, executed in favour of the plaintiffs / applicants, stands set aside by this Court, the plaintiffs / applicants have no right or title to enjoy the suit property or pray for issuance of permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs / applicants also contends that in any case, the applicants / plaintiffs are entitled to protection from forceful dispossession from the property in dispute. 14. This contention also cannot be accepted. The applicants / plaintiffs came in possession of the property under a sale deed, which stands set aside by this Court. The applicants, therefore, do not have prima facie case to continue in possession of property, as the very basis to remain in possession stands set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 15. The remedy in the facts and circumstances of the case herein above with the applicants / plaintiffs, was to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court in pending SLP by asserting their rights to continue in possession. It is not disputed that there is no stay order in favour of the applicants. 16. The applicants / plaintiffs have chosen wrong remedy in coming to this Court seeking injunction against judgment and decree of this Court by seeking permanent injunction against decree holders. Once the sale deed executed in favour of the the applicants / plaintiffs was held to be null and void, the applicants / plaintiffs do not have any legal right to continue in possession of the property. The applicants therefore have no prima facie case, nor the balance of convenience can be said to be in favour of the plaintiffs / applicants. 17. Finding no merits in this application, it is ordered to be dismissed. 18. It is made clear that the observations made herein above are for deciding the interim application and cannot be taken to be the expression / final adjudication, as the final findings can be recorded after the parties lead evidence in the pending suit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 19. The prayer of the learned counsel for the applicants to keep this order in abeyance for period of 10 days is accepted. No costs. Sd/-V.K.S.J 12.10.2011 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2011. R.s/08.12.2011 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/