IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.11.2011 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA O.A.No.409 of 2006, A.Nos.2030 & 2031 of 2006 and A.2477 of 2007 in C.S.No.378 of 2006 ORDER The plaintiff / applicant has filed a suit for; a) a declaration that the power of attorney dated 17.08.2004 obtained by the defendant nos. 1 and 2 from the plaintiff during the period of kidnapping under threat, confinement, coercion and threat and registered as Doc.No.1977 of 2004 at SRO, Virugambakkam as null and void as the power has been obtained by coercion, kidnap, threat and fraud and consequentially the sale deeds executed by the defendants 1 and 2 dated 18.03.2005 and registered as Doc.Nos.222 and 223 of 2005, at SRO, Sowcarpet in favour of the defendant nos. 9 and 10 in respect of the suit schedule property is also as null and void; b) a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directing the defendants, their agents, servants or any one acting under them to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff; c) directing the defendants 1 and 2 to deposit the entire sale consideration received by sale of the suit property from defendant nos. 9 and 10 to the credit of the above suit and account the entire transaction from the date of sale to this Hon'ble and render justice. d) costs of the suit. 2. It is pleaded case of the plaintiff / applicant that two registered power of attorneys were executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant nos. 1 & 2. The power of attorney holders of the plaintiff / applicant sold the property to defendant nos.3 to 10. The possession of the property was also handed over to the Vendee, who are in possession of the property, by virtue of sale. 3. As already observed above, the suit has been filed for declaration that sale deeds, executed in favour of defendant nos. 3 to 10 are illegal and null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff / applicant, being outcome of fraud. 4. The pleaded case of the plaintiff / applicant is that the defendant nos. 1 & 2 had kidnapped the plaintiff / applicant and she was forced to execute the power of attorney in their favour. The attorney holders, after sale, did not pass on the sale consideration, to the applicant / plaintiff. 5. The stand of defendant nos. 1 & 2 is that the sale consideration was passed on to the plaintiff. In support thereof, defendant nos.1 & 2 have produced on record receipts for proof of receipt of money by the plaintiff. 6. In C.S.No.378 of 2006, the following applications were filed: i) O.A.No.409 of 2006 - To grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents / defendants 9 and 10, their agents, servants and any one acting under them from dealing with the suit schedule property in any manner either by way of sale, lease or any other mode of conveyance or creating any charge over the property and consequentially collecting rents from the tenants in respect of the suit schedule property. ii) A.No.2030 of 2006  To direct 1st and 2nd respondents to deposit the sale proceeds realised by the respondents / defendants 1 and 2 to the tune of Rs.36,00,000/-. iii) A.No.2031 of 2006  To direct the garnishees 3 to 5 to deposit their respective monthly rental amounts to the credit of the suit for their respective portions under this occupation, pending disposal of the suit. iv) A.2477 of 2007  To vacate the exparte interim injunction granted on 17.05.2006 in O.A.No.409 of 2006 and consequently, dismiss the said O.A.No.409 of 2006. 7. On consideration of the matter, I find that the plaintiff / applicant is not entitled to interim reliefs, as prayed for in O.A.No.409 of 2006, A.Nos.2030 & 2031 of 2006. 8. Once it is not disputed that the power of attorney, was executed by the plaintiff / applicant, whether it is outcome of fraud or misrepresentation or whether applicant was forced to sign the power of attorney, is question to be decided after parties lead evidence. In the event of success, it will always be open to the Court to grant relief, in view of settled law that fraud vitiates everything, and that this Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, can pass any order to do justice to the aggrieved party. 9. As on date, defendant nos. 3 to 10 are the registered owners of the property, who have purchased it for consideration, therefore, cannot be restrained, specially when any transaction or alienation will be subject to "lis pendens" where the rights of the plaintiff / applicant will be duly protected. 10. Interim relief can only be granted to maintain status quo, and cannot be used as a mean to harass defendants, for some other consideration 11. The plaintiff / applicant, in order to succeed in prayer for interim injunction, has not only to prove prima facie case, but also require to prove balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury. 12. In this case, the plaintiff / applicant failed to make out any prima facie case nor are likely to suffer irreparable loss or injury, in view of the protection under "lis pendens". 13. Furthermore, balance of convenience also cannot be said to be in favour of the plaintiff / applicant, as defendant nos.3 to 10 are admittedly registered owners of the property, having purchased it for consideration. As already observed, it cannot be said that the applicant will suffer irreparable loss, if injunction is not granted, as "lis pendens" transferee steps into the shoes of his vendor and thus is bound by the decree. 14. Consequently, finding no merit in all these applications, O.A.No.409 of 2006, A.Nos.2030 & 2031 of 2006 are ordered to be dismissed. 15. In view of the detailed order passed in the above applications, A.No.2477 of 2007 is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. ar