Madras High Court
Mr.Narain Valiram Mahbubani vs Mrs.Chitra Ramdas Iyer on 21 November, 2025
2025:MHC:2873
CS No.120 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
CS No.120 of 2022
and
OA No.374 of 2022
and
A Nos.3040 and 3042 of 2022
1. Mr.Narain Valiram Mahbubani
S/o Late Mr.Valiram,
No.9C/T5, Sindur Sea Princess Apartments,
No.9, Coastal Road,
Besant Nagar,
Chennai – 600 090.
2.Mrs.Jaya Narain Mahbubani,
W/o. Mr.Narain Valiram Mahbubani,
No.9C/T5, Sindur Sea Princess Apartments,
No.9, Coastal Road, Besant Nagar,
Chennai - 600 090.
...Plaintiffs
Vs
1. Mrs.Chitra Ramdas Iyer,
W/o Ramdas Iyer,
No.S2, Block III (Block “C”),
3rd Floor, Sindur Sea Princess
1/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm )
CS No.120 of 2022
Apartments,
No.9, Coastal Road,
Beasant Nagar,
Chennai - 600 090.
2.Mr.Kaushik Mohan,
S/o. Mr.R.R.Mohan,
No.S2, Block III (Block “C”),
3rd Floor, Sindur Sea Princess
Apartments,
No.9, Coastal Road, Besant Nagar,
Chennai - 600 090.
3.Mrs.Sheetal Ramdas,
W/o. Mr.Kaushik Mohan,
No.S2, Block III (Block “C”),
3rd Floor, Sindur Sea Princess
Apartments,
No.9, Coastal Road, Besant Nagar,
Chennai - 600 090.
...Defendants
PRAYER: The Civil Suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC
read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules to pass a Judgment and
Decree against the defendants:-
a) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents,
henchmen, etc., from any manner interfering with the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned Car Parking by the plaintiffs;
b) The defendant to pay an amount of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
Twenty Thousand Only) towards compensation for illegally parking their
cars at the above said car parking slot for the last 42 months;
2/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm )
CS No.120 of 2022
c) Award cost of the suit.
For Plaintiffs: Mr.G.Vijay Anand
for M/s.G.Vijay Anand &
Associates.
For Defendants : Mr.S.S.Rajesh
JUDGMENT
This Suit has been filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules for the relief of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule mentioned Car Parking and to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) towards compensation for illegally parking their cars for the last 42 months.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is as follows:
(a) The plaintiffs are the owners of the Suit property, and they purchased the Suit property along with the Apartment through a Registered Sale Deed dated 10.02.2003.3/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(b) The plaintiffs' predecessor, namely Mr.Lalchand Meghraj Bellani, and his wife Mrs.Anu Lalchand Bellani, got title to the said property through a registered Document bearing Nos.2467 of 1984, 2466 of 1984, 2465 of 1984, 2468 of 1984, 115 of 1985, 114 of 1985, 160 of 1985, 161 of 1985 and 164 of 1985 in the office of Sub Registrar, Adyar.
(c) The present Apartment and two covered car parks owned by the plaintiffs had been constructed by the predecessors in title through an Agreement dated 13.05.1999, executed with M/s. Maruthi Builders, and the said two covered car parks along with the Pent House were owned by the plaintiffs' predecessor in title.
(d) The said two covered car parks were reconfirmed and demarcated as Car Park No.12 and Car Park No.19 at Block 3 of the Sindur Sea Princess Apartments Complex by the Manager, M/s.Maruthi Builder. A copy of the plan was handed over to the Sindur Sea Princess Owner's Association office and was acknowledged by an office bearer of the Owners Association.
(e) During the plaintiffs' predecessors in title, they were utilizing the 4/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 two covered car parks, which were painted and demarcated in Yellow and Black Colours specifying the ownership of the same in Apartment No.T5 of IIIrd Block. After the purchase of the Pent House Apartment by the plaintiffs, they are the absolute owners of the said building as well as the said covered car parks.
(f) The defendants in the year 2018 had occupied an Apartment on the third floor of the same Block, bearing Door No.S2, for the plinth area of about 1450/100000th Sq.ft., consisting of one open car park as per their Sale Deed in Document No.1741 of 2018. The defendants had illegally and fraudulently trespassed into the plaintiffs' covered Car Park No.19 by parking their two cars bearing No.TN07 CR 6788 and TN06 Q 1324, without any right, title or interest over the said covered car park situated in Car Park No.19.
(g) The defendants have indulged in the act of illegally parking their cars from the year 2019 onwards, and the plaintiffs had requested the 5/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 defendants, but the defendants have been parking their cars in the plaintiffs' car park slot. Thereafter, the defendants, along with the Owner's Association, had blackened and erased the allotted car park Number of T5 by applying the paint over the same with the intention to clandestinely remove any evidence that the car park belongs to the plaintiffs and for meeting their illegal end of criminal trespass.
(h) The Apartment owned and occupied by the defendants had one open car park as per the Sale Deed in Document No.1741 of 2018 dated 21.02.2018. The defendants from January 2019 have been occupying the plaintiffs' covered car park slot. Thereby, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) calculating at Rs.10,000/- per month, for the last three and a half years (42 months X Rs.10,000/-).
(i) The plaintiffs issued a legal notice on 02.05.2022 to the first defendant calling upon the defendants to restrain them from parking their 6/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 vehicles in the plaintiffs' car park. The defendants have issued a false reply. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed this Suit.
3. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants are as follows:
(a) This Suit is not only sustainable in law and facts, but it is also an abuse of the process of law. All the allegations are baseless and self-contradictory, and the relief sought for is contrary to the pleadings and there is no proper and surviving cause of action to file the present Suit. The plaintiffs had come to the Court with unclean hands and suppressing all the material facts. Since the car parks were allotted by the Apartment's Owners' Association much later to the construction of the Apartment Complex, the Association is a proper and necessary party to this Suit. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed for Non-Joinder of necessary parties.
(b) Originally the entire Apartment Complex did not have 7/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 any designated car parks for the owners of the Apartments. But the Sale Deed dated 03.03.1997 executed in favour of the defendants' predecessor in title, Mrs. Lakshmi Bai Venkataramani, does not mention in the “Schedule of Property” that the property transferred includes “ONE OPEN CAR PARK SPACE.” At that time, the three unauthorised “Pent Houses” in the fifth floor of each of the Blocks (Three Blocks) were not constructed.
(c) Later in the year 2003, the members of the Sindur Sea Princess Owners' Association, who were the then occupants, had agreed among themselves to earmark the total available car park spaces as designated car parks for the respective flat owners, and such designated car parks were exclusively earmarked, and the Flat numbers were painted on the respective pillars or the beam where the cars were parked.
(d) From 2003, the Suit car park area has been designated and earmarked for the Apartment “S2,” and it has been in the exclusive possession of the defendants' predecessor in title, namely Mrs.Lakshmi Bai Venkatramani. The plaintiffs are claiming ownership, right, title and interest 8/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 in a designated and demarcated parking lot that does not belong to them.
(e) The first defendant's husband, namely, Mr.Ramdas Iyer, entered into a “LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT” on 10.06.2017 with the predecessor in title Mrs.Lakshmi Bai Venkataramani, for a period of 11 months. Ever since the said Agreement, the defendants' family has been in occupation of the “S2” Residential Flat, along with the designated car park, earmarked as “S2.” Therefore, there is no question of defendants interfering with the so-called peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs' car parking as alleged in the plaint.
(f) The plaintiffs themselves admitted that the Suit premises is under occupation of the defendants at the time of filing the Suit and they have parked their cars in the said space; thus the question of granting relief of permanent injunction in interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the said disputed car parking does not arise. The plaintiffs have not been in possession of the Suit property on the date of the institution of the Suit even as per their plaint pleadings.9/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(g) Later the second and third defendants jointly purchased the subject property from Mrs.Lakshmi Bai Venkatramani through a Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018 registered as Document No.1741 of 2018 before SRO, Saidapet. Therefore, the defendants are in the possession and enjoyment of the designated car parking “S2,” wherein they have been parking their cars ever since 2017.
(h) In the Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018, it is stated that the defendants were allotted one car parking around the building, but it is just and equitable to state that the Schedule “B” mentioned in the document has been copied from the previous Title Deed in favour of their predecessor in title, which was registered before the demarcation and earmark of the car park in the year 2003. The plaintiffs are trying to take advantage of the Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018 by making false claims over the car park, which has been exclusively allotted to the defendants. The plaintiffs had issued a frivolous legal notice dated 02.05.2022, and the same was suitably replied to vide Reply Notice dated 16.05.2022.
10/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(i) The Owner's Association had resolved in the meeting held on 03.09.2003 to allot the designated car parks to each of the Apartment owners, and the designated car park “S2,” which is the subject matter of the Suit, was allotted to the defendants' predecessor, namely Mrs. Lakshmi Bai Venkataramani, in title. Therefore, the Suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Based on the above-said pleadings, perusing the documents, and hearing both sides, this Court framed the following issues for trial:
(i). Whether the suit seeking permanent injunction is maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of the right to park cars in the slots mentioned in the schedule to the plaint?
(ii). Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the said slots as mentioned to the schedule to the plaint by parking their cars on the date of filing of the suit?
(iii). Whether the title to the property flats of the 11/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 defendant is germane as an issue to be examined to determine whether the defendants can claim any right to park the cars in the slots mentioned in the schedule to the plaint?
(iv). Whether the defendants by virtue of their sale deeds been given a right to park the cars in the slots mentioned in the schedule to the plaint?
(v). Whether the demarcation of car parking by Maruti Builders vide letter dated 03.09.2003, gives a specific right to the plaintiffs to park cars in the slots mentioned in the plaint?
(vi). Whether the letter dated 03.09.2003 by Maruti Builders also gives right to the defendants to park cars in the parking slots mentioned in the plaint?
(vii). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation for a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- as claimed in the plaint?
(viii). Whether the defendants have been illegally or 12/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 wrongfully parking their cars for a period of 42 months?
(ix). Whether, if the plaintiffs are held not entitled to the relief of injunction then whether it would automatically mean that the defendants are entitled to use the car parking slots?
(x). Whether the defendants can claim any right to enjoy the car parks during the period when they were tenants and not owners of the flats and whether as tenants they can claim such rights?
(xi).Whether the suit is barred by Law of Limitation?
5. For an effective disposal of the case, the issues already framed by this Court on 13.10.2022 are now re-casted as follows:
(i).Whether the suit seeking permanent injunction is maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of the right to park cars in the slots mentioned in the schedule to the plaint?
(ii).Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the said slots as mentioned to the schedule to the 13/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 plaint by parking their cars on the date of filing of the suit?
(iii).Whether the defendants by virtue of their sale deeds been given a right to park the cars in the slots mentioned in the schedule to the plaint?
(iv).Whether the letter dated 03.09.2003 by Maruti Builders also gives right to the defendants to park cars in the parking slots mentioned in the plaint?
(v).Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation for a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- as claimed in the plaint?
(vi).Whether the defendants can claim any right to enjoy the car parks during the period when they were tenants and not owners of the flats and whether as tenants they can claim such rights?
(vii).Whether the suit is barred by Law of Limitation?14/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as against the defendants as prayed for in the plaint?
(ix) To what other reliefs the parties are entitled for?
6. Though this Court has re-casted the issues at the stage of Judgment, this Court has not framed any additional issues, and already framed issues have been re-casted now. Therefore, no further evidence is required in respect of the re-casted issues. Hence, this Court is inclined to pass Judgment based on the available documents and evidences.
7. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, they examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. On the side of the defendants, they examined D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 and D2.
8. Mr.G.Vijay Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, 15/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 would submit that:
(a) The plaintiffs are the owners of the Suit property, and they purchased the Suit property along with the Apartment through a Sale Deed dated 10.02.2003 registered as Document No.556 of 2003 at Joint Sub Registrar Office I, District Registrar Cadre, South Chennai. The said Sale Deed has been marked as Ex.P5. From the date of purchase, the plaintiffs, as well as their predecessors in title have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property, namely the Pent House, as well as the two covered car parks. While so, the defendants inducted as tenants in the same building, the third floor of the Apartment Block in 'S2,' occupied the car parks, and thereafter, the defendants 2 and 3 purchased the subject property on 21.02.2018 through a registered Sale Deed and the same has been marked as Ex.P1.
(b) As per the above-said Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018, the defendants 16/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 are entitled to one open car park situated at the space around the building.
The schedule-covered car park is situated at the stilt area of the Apartment building. Taking advantage of the same, the defendants have been trespassing into plaintiffs' car parks from January 2019 onwards and the car is a movable property and has to be utilised for travelling as and when the plaintiffs use their vehicle for travel, and the said place is illegally occupied by the defendants, then and now.
(c) The plaintiffs had immediately after making several reports to the defendants calling upon them to desist from trespassing into the car park, but they continued. Thereby, the plaintiffs issued notice on 04.05.2022 through Ex.P2 and the defendants issued a reply with false allegations.
(d) The defendants are mainly relying upon Ex.D2, which is said to be the letter given by the owner at the time of entering into the Lease Agreement. In the Lease Agreement, there is no mention about the car park. Therefore, the defendants have no any right over the car parks mentioned in the Suit property.
17/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(e) The defendants have approached this Court with unclean hands. Through oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiffs have proved their case, and the plaintiffs had clear title over the property. The defendants trespassed without any title and occupied the property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for.
(f) Moreover, D.W.1, during his cross examination, admitted that he is the husband of the first defendant, father-in-law of the second defendant, and father of the third defendant and he is naturally entitled to represent the other defendants. But in fact, the first defendant has no knowledge about the case, and she has not purchased the property. Therefore, the other defendants failed to prove their case and the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs also relied upon the following Judgments:
(i) Associated Hotels of India Ltd. Vs. R.N.Kapoor reported in 1959 SCC OnLine SC 62.18/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(ii) MST Rukhmabai Vs. Lala Laxminarayan and others reported in 1959 SCC OnLine SC 9.
(iii) S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath and others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1.
(iv) Jalla and another Vs. Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd and another reported in [2023] UKSC 16.
(v) Civil Original Jurisdiction Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation with Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020.
(vi) M/s. Tommorrowland Limited Vs. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited and Another reported in 2025 INSC 207.
(vii) Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram and others reported in (1974) 1 SCC 242.
(viii) T.V.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. M.Mallappa and another reported in (2021) 10 Scale 276.
(ix) Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594.
(x) Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar 19/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 Singh and another reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692.
9. Mr.S.S.Rajesh, the learned counsel for the defendants, would submit that:
(a) The plaintiffs have filed this Suit for the relief of a permanent injunction and for claiming damages, alleging that the Suit property belongs to them. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiffs and initially the defendants were inducted as tenants for the Apartment “S2,” and the Suit car parking was allotted to them from the predecessors of the defendants and thereafter, the 2nd and 3rd defendants purchased the property through a Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018, and the defendants have been using the car park since 10.06.2017.
(b) Initially, the husband of the first defendant, namely Mr.Ramdas Iyer, entered into a “LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT” with the original owner on 10.06.2017 through Ex.D1. Through Ex.D2/a letter executed by the defendants' predecessor, the defendants confirmed the car parking in “S2,” two covered car parkings and the defendants are in 20/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 possession and enjoyment of the car parkings without any interruption from other residents.
(c) According to the plaintiffs' case, they have been in dispossession of the car park as early as in the month of January 2019. Ex.P2, the legal notice issued by the plaintiffs, also proved the dispossession. Therefore, the Suit for bare injunction is not maintainable. The plaintiffs are not even certain in identifying their car park “T5,” and no material has been produced before this Court and the only material available before the Court pertains to car park “S2,” which has been in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants since 2017.
(d) The “T5” car parking is not only in dispute, but also still not been identified by the plaintiffs, and since the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property, the plaintiffs ought to have sought for recovery of possession as per Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, within six months from the date of its dispossession.21/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(e) The plaintiffs have sought for the relief of a bare injunction without any basis of possession of title, as per the plaint. The cause of action arose in the month of January 2019, but the Suit has been filed only on 23.06.2022 and as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date of the cause of action, but the Suit has been filed beyond the limitation period. The plaintiffs' plea in respect of continuous tort under Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is misconceived and inapplicable in the present Suit as there is no continuing or recurring wrongful act but a single instance of alleged occupation.
(f) As per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, any Suit seeking a declaratory relief must be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Therefore, the Suit is barred by limitation.
(g) The plaintiffs have not included the Sindur Sea Princess Owners' Association, which is a proper and necessary party since the car 22/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 park allocations were made by the Association vide Resolution dated : 03.09.2003. The property that was originally sanctioned to be constructed was only four floors, whereas the “Pent House” in which the plaintiffs are residing is on the fifth floor of the Apartment Complex. Therefore, there are no car parks allotted to the plaintiffs or their predecessors.
(h) In Ex.P7/Demarcation of car park by Maruthi Builders in favour of the plaintiffs dated 03.09.2003, there is a reference about the demarcation of the car park by the Owners' Association and the same is not in dispute. The said document is at much later to the date of purchase by the plaintiffs.
(i) It is well-settled principal of law that a Suit for bare injunction is maintainable only when the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the Suit property on the date of institution of the Suit, but the plaintiffs admitted that the defendants have been in occupation of “S2” and parking their vehicles in the disputed car park since 2017. The plaintiffs are trying to take advantage of the Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018 by making false claim over the car park which has been exclusively allotted to the defendants. Therefore, the 23/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 plaintiffs have not approached this Court with clean hands and the plaintiffs failed to prove their case and the Suit is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants also relied upon the following Judgments.
(i). Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy and Others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594.
2. Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and another reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692.
3. S.Santhana Lakshmi and others Vs. D.Rajammal in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18943 of 2024.
10. This Court heard both sides and perused the records.
11. Issue No.1 24/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(i).Whether the suit seeking permanent injunction is maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of the right to park cars in the slots mentioned in the schedule to the plaint?
(a) The plaintiffs have filed this Suit for a relief of permanent injunction and for damages, alleging that they purchased the Suit property along with the Apartment through a Sale Deed dated 10.02.2003 and in the Sale Deed itself, the Suit car parkings have been mentioned, but the defendants forcefully parking the cars in the car park allotted to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed this Suit.
(b) According to the defendants, they are tenants under one Mrs.Lakshmi Bai Venkataramani, through a “LEAVE AND LICENSE AGREEMENT” dated 10.06.2017. Based on the above-said Lease Agreement, the “S2” Residential Flat was allotted along with a car parking earmarked for “S2” i.e, the Suit car parking. Subsequently the 2nd and 3rd defendants purchased the property on 21.02.2018. Now the defendants raised a plea that the Suit for bare injunction is not maintainable without any claim for declaration. Therefore, the Court has to analyse whether the 25/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 plaintiffs purchased the Suit car parking areas. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. According to the plaintiffs, they purchased the Suit property through a Sale Deed dated 10.02.2003 and the copy of the Sale Deed has been marked as Ex.P5. On a careful perusal of Ex.P5, it revealed that the plaintiffs purchased the property with two covered car parks in the stilt area. The present disputed car parks also situated in the stilt area. P.W.1 also in his evidence stated about the purchase of property through Sale Deed and the allotment of covered car parkings. Therefore, this Court easily come to conclusion that the plaintiffs purchased car parking in the stilt. The plaintiffs through oral and documentary evidences established their case in respect of purchase of car parks and discharged their initial burden.
(c) Whereas the case of the defendants is that the defendants were tenant to S2 portion and they entered into the possession through Ex.D1 on 10.06.2017. Through Ex.D2, the car parking was confirmed to them and 26/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 subsequently they purchased the said flat S2 through Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018. Either in the Lease Deed or in the Sale Deed purchased by the 2nd and 3rd defendants no reference about two car parks in the stilt. Per contra, the Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018 revealed that one car park around the building was allotted to the defendants. Under Ex.D1, the defendants entered into the possession of S2 flat, but the Ex.D1 does not contain recitals of the car park. The present Suit is with regard to the car parks situated in the stilt area of the building.
(d) At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants would submit that initially the plan was approved for three floors and thereafter 4th and 5th floors were constructed, the plaintiffs' property was constructed, later in the 5th floor. Whereas the defendants' property was constructed as per the old plan and thereby the car park in the document dated 21.02.2018 was wrongly mentioned. But there is no evidence to substantiate the said contentions.
(e) Moreover the 2nd and 3rd defendants purchased the property in S2 apartment through Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018, but the said Sale Deed 27/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 has not been produced before this Court and the original owners have not entered into witness box and not subjected for cross – examination. The 1st defendant who is no way connected with the suit property was examined as P.W.1 and he is not a competent person to speak about the purchase of the property and the possession through the Lease Deed.
(f) Even assuming that if any error in the previous document, the defendants purchased only an extent of 1450 sq.ft., but the plaintiffs purchased 3000 sq.ft, therefore, for the extent of 1450 sq.ft., two car parks cannot be allotted and there are more probabilities to allot two car parkings for the extent of 3000 sq.ft. Further the DW1, during his cross examination admitted that as per their Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018, there is nothing marked about the car park. Further he admitted that the plot owners, 2nd and 3rd defendants have no cars and first defendant who is mother of the third defendant alone has own cars. Further the defendants are mainly relying on Ex.D2 which is subsequent to their lease and prior to the Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018 and the said letter cannot be basis for the claim of the defendants. From the said evidence, it is clear that there is no cloud over 28/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 the title of the plaintiff. The PW1 also in his evidence stated that T5 in his car park and his name was mentioned as Mr.Narayanan and also mentioned as the Pent House.
(g) The learned counsel appearing for the defendants would submit that the first plaintiff during cross-examination admitted that he has not produced the plan for the car parks and the building and also pointed out some admissions in the cross-examination and also argued that the D.W.1 was not effectively cross-examined on vital aspects, thereby, it amounts to admission of the defendants' case. This Court also perused the entire evidences on both sides. It is true that there are minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 and cross examination of D.W.1 but the same will not affect the case of the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs' case is based on the title deeds, whereas the defendants have not produced documents to prove their title over the car parks. The oral evidence of the witnesses have not to be looked into along with the documentary evidences. When documentary evidence is very clear then the discrepancies found in the oral evidence have no significance. Moreover, the entire evidence has to be looked into and a 29/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 word or particular evidence cannot be isolated to decide the case. The oral evidence cannot override the documentary evidence. Mere clever drafting and the cross-examination of the innocent litigant cannot override the documentary evidences and it cannot create any right to the party who had effectively cross examined the witnesses without any documents to prove their claim. In this case, though there are some discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1, the same cannot create any right to the defendants and cannot deprive the right of the plaintiffs' property purchased through legal documents. Whatever the pleadings, they will not amount to proof of evidence, the pleadings should be supported by documents. In this case, the defendants have not produced the title deeds for the purchase of the suit car parks. Without any documents, the defendants cannot take advantage of the minor discrepancies in the oral evidence of P.W.1, when the documentary evidences are very strong. It is well settled law that the plaintiffs have to prove their case on their own evidences, but at the same time, the defendants without any title over the property without producing any documents cannot claim right over the property as against the better title holder of the property. 30/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(h) It is well-settled law that merely because the defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs need not seek relief of declaration. If there is any cloud over the title, then the relief of declaration is essential. At this Juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs relied upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i) Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Paragraph No.21 as follows:
“21. To summarise, the position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable property, is as under:
(a) Where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter. 31/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(b) As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c) But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either specific, or implied as noticed in Annaimuthu Thevar). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the Court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a question or title, in a suit for 32/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
(d) Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straighforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction, should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will 33/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 refer to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.
(ii) T.V.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs. M.Mallapa and Another in Special Leave Petition (C) No.10621 of 2020, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph nos.10 and 11 as follows :
“10. It could thus be seen that this Court in unequivocal terms has held that where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, a suit for injunction could be decided with reference to the finding on possession. It has been clearly held that if the matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
11. No doubt, this Court has held that 34/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 where there are necessary pleadings regarding title and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. However, it has been held that such cases the exception to the normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.”
(iii). Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and another reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para No.11 held as follows:
“11. It is well settled by catena of Judgments of this Court that in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and 35/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction.”
(i) On a careful perusal of the above-said Judgments, it is clear that where the plaintiffs have clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper without any apparent title, merely denies the plaintiffs' title, it does not amount to raising a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and it will not be necessary for the plaintiffs to sue for declaration and a Suit for injunction may be sufficient and also it is clear that in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiffs, it is not necessary that in all those cases the plaintiffs have to seek the relief of declaration. A Suit for mere injunction does not lie only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs, then necessarily in those circumstances, the plaintiffs cannot maintain a Suit for bare injunction.
(j) The learned counsel appearing for the defendants also relied upon 36/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 the Judgments of (i). Anathula Sudhakar Vs.P.Buchi Reddy and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594, (ii) Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and another, reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692, stating that where the title of the plaintiffs is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in a possession or not able to establish possession necessarily, the plaintiffs will have to file a Suit for declaration, possession and injunction and where a cloud is raised over the plaintiffs' title and he does not have possession, a Suit for declaration and possession with or without a consequential injunction is the remedy. However, in the case on hand, the plaintiffs filed this Suit for the relief of a bare injunction and for damages based on their title and the plaintiffs purchased the property through Sale Deed dated 10.02.2003 and the defendants had not denied the purchase of the property by the plaintiffs.
(k) Per contra, the defendants denied the car shed allotted to the plaintiffs, and according to the defendants, the said car shed was allotted to the Apartment “S2” and they initially entered into the said Apartment “S2” as tenants and thereafter, they purchased the property through a Sale Deed 37/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 dated 21.02.2018. The defendants have not produced their Sale Deed. Whereas, the plaintiffs had marked the copy of the Sale Deed as Ex.P1.
(l) As per Ex.P1, there is mention about the one car park in the area around the building in the lands described in Schedule “A” above together with Flat “S2,” but the defendants are claiming the two covered car parks, which are now under dispute. Whereas the Document Ex.P5, which is the Sale Deed dated 10.02.2003, is in the name of the plaintiffs, and the Sale Deed itself refers to two covered car parking spaces in the stilt area in Block No.3, Block “C” of the Ground Floor. Therefore, from the said recitals found in Ex.P1, it is clear that the defendants have purchased the Flat No.S2 with one car parking in the area around the building, but now the defendants are claiming car parking in the stilt area. The defendants have not produced the Sale Deed registered in their favour and thereby, this Court can presume that the said Sale Deed is against the defendants with regard to the car park, thereby, they failed to produce the said document before this Court. As per explanation of Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume that the evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be 38/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 unfavourable to the person who withholds it. In this case also the defendants did not produce the Sale Deed purchased by them, where the car park marked as one car park around the building. Therefore, the defendants without any title cannot deny the title of the plaintiffs and there is no any cloud over the title of the property and thereby, the Suit for bare injunction without seeking prayer of the declaration is well maintainable. Thus, the Issue No.1 is answered.
12. Issue No. 2
(ii).Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the said slots as mentioned to the schedule to the plaint by parking their cars on the date of filing of the suit?
(a) The plaintiffs have filed the Suit for bare injunction alleging that they were in possession and enjoyment of the property and the defendants illegally occupied the car parking, and from January 2019, they have been occupying the plaintiffs' covered car parks. As far as the car parking is 39/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 concerned, the cars cannot be parked permanently, and cars being the movable properties used for frequent travel cannot occupy the property permanently. Though the plaintiffs in the plaint stated that from January 2019, the defendants have been occupying the plaintiffs' covered car parking, those cars have not been permanently parked in the said parking. Therefore, it can be presumed that the plaintiffs were in possession of the said slots mentioned in the plaint by parking their cars on the date of filing of this Suit.
(b) At this Juncture, it is relevant to refer the evidence of P.W.1, where he stated that the cars are being parked by the plaintiffs and immediately after moving the cars, the defendants used to occupy the car parkings. Specifically in para 11 of the proof affidavit stated that the illegal act of encroaching into the plaintiffs car park is not a continuous violation, since the cars are used for monthly and they are removed from the car park when the defendants are travelling in the same. Further, the D.W.1 also admitted in his evidence, that their predecessors had not owned any car at the time of leasing the property to them, thereby it is clear that no occasion 40/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 to grant car park to the defendants through Ex.D1 and D2 was created afterthought. Further, the D.W.1 also admitted that he has one car at present. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiffs were in possession of the said stilt car parks by parking their cars on the date of filing of this Suit. Thus, the Issue No.2 is answered.
13. Issue No. 3.
(iii).Whether the defendants by virtue of their sale deeds been given a right to park the cars in the slots mentioned in the schedule to the plaint?
(a) According to the plaintiffs, they purchased the property through a Sale Deed dated 10.02.2003, and the said Sale Deed has not been denied by the defendants. According to the defendants, they purchased the property through a Sale Deed dated 21.02.2018 from their predecessors, and the defendants have not filed the Sale Deed obtained in their favour, and they only produced Exs.D1 and D2. Ex.D1 is the Leave and License Agreement dated 10.06.2017 and Ex.D2 is the letter executed by their predecessors by allotting car parkings.
41/53https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(b) The conduct of the defendants by not producing the original Sale Deed shows their intention, whereas the plaintiffs have filed the said document as Ex.P1. On perusal of the recitals of Ex.P1, it revealed that the defendants were allotted an open car park around the building. This Court in the previous issues discussed about the non production of Sale Deed in the name of defendants 2 and 3 and presume the explanation (g) of Section 114 of Evidence Act that the Sale Deed of the defendants is against them and thereby, they did not produce the Sale Deed before this Court. Whereas, the recitals of Ex.P1 also reveal that the defendants have no car parking at stilt area and they allotted one car park as around the building.
(c) It is an admitted fact that the defendants purchased the property to an extent of 1450 sq.ft, whereas the plaintiffs purchased 3000 sq.ft. Therefore, obviously two car parks would be allotted to the plaintiffs depending upon the area of the property. Therefore, from the records, it is clear that the defendants were allotted one car parking around the building 42/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 and there is no any car parking given to the defendants in the stilt.
(d) Ex.D1, is the Leave and License Agreement dated 10.06.2017, where also there is no mention about the car parking. The defendants had produced Ex.D2, the Letter issued by the owner of the property. When there is any no mention about the Lease Agreement in respect of the car parking, the subsequent letter cannot give any right to the defendants for the car parking. Moreover, the defendants failed to examine the original owner to prove the said parking was allotted to them. Whereas, the documents of the plaintiffs clearly show that the property was covered by two car parkings in the stilt. The defendants who had no any car parking in the stilt cannot claim any right over the property. Thus, the Issue No.3 is answered.
14. Issue No.4
(iv). Whether the letter dated 03.09.2003 by Maruti Builders also gives right to the defendants to park cars in the parking slots mentioned in the plaint?
43/53https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(a) The plaintiffs and the defendants relied upon Ex.P7, the allotment letter for the car parkings dated 03.09.2003. That document is the Xerox copy of the document where the car parking for “S2” is also mentioned and “T5” is also mentioned, and when there is no any car parking allotted in the stilt to “S2” through the Sale Deed, which is the parent document to the defendants, merely because there is a mentioning about the car parking in the letter dated 03.09.2003 does not give any right to the defendants for the car park.
(b) The said car park was allotted on 03.09.2003, while so, there was no any mentioning in the Lease Deed in favour of the defendants in the year 2017. Similarly, there is no mentioning about the two covered car parkings in the Sale Deed obtained by the defendants in the year 2018. Ex.P7 is admitted by both the parties, and it is well settled law that admitted facts need not be proved. As per Section 58 of the Evidence Act, facts admitted need not be proved. However, as per proviso to Section 58, the Court may in its discretion require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise thereby such admission. Further, as per Section 31 of the Evidence Act, admissions are 44/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppal under the provisions contained in Evidence Act. Therefore, in view of the said legal position, the Ex.P7 which is not an original record cannot be taken as admission for allotment of car parks. When the property was purchased through the registered document of Sale Deed with one covered car park around the building, the Ex.P7 contra to the recitals of the Sale Deed cannot be accepted. Ex.P7 is not a registered document and the parties have not produced the original document and the same is a photocopy. The said Ex.P7 cannot override the Ex.P1 registered document. As per Section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, the defendants are not entitled to deny the averments of Ex.P1 through oral evidence in respect of car parks. Therefore, the defendants cannot claim any car parkings based on the letter dated 03.09.2003. Thus, the Issue No.4 is answered.
15.Issue No. 5
(v).Whether the defendants can claim any right to enjoy the car parks during the period when they were tenants and not owners of the flats and whether as tenants they can claim such rights?
45/53https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(a) The defendants claiming the right of the car parkings based on their tenancy and thereafter, they purchased the property. In the Tenancy Agreement, Ex.D1 there is no mentioning about the car parkings and the defendants, being the tenants, cannot claim any rights beyond the Tenancy Agreement. In the Tenancy Agreement, there is no mentioning about the car parkings.
(b) Even as per the Sale Deed in the name of the defendants, they are entitled to one car park in the area around the building. Whereas, the Sale Deed in the name of the plaintiffs shows that the plaintiffs are entitled two covered car parks on the stilt floor. Therefore, the defendants, being the tenants, cannot have any car parking, and there is no mention about the car parking in the Tenancy Agreement. Moreover, the original tenant had not even owned any car and the first defendant alone had cars. Therefore, the defendants cannot claim any right to enjoy the car parks during the period when they were tenants and not owners of the flats and the tenants cannot claim such rights. Thus, the Issue No.5 is answered. 46/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
16.Issue No.6.
(vi).Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for compensation for a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- as claimed in the plaint?
(a) The plaintiffs have sought for a relief of compensation for the unauthorised occupation of the car parks. It is an admitted fact by the plaintiffs that after they took the cars from the parking place, the defendants used to park the cars in that place. When the plaintiffs demanded the removal of the cars from the car parks, the defendants refused to do so, and only after they taking the cars, the plaintiffs used to park the cars. Therefore, both the plaintiffs and the defendants are using the car parkings, and thereby, the plaintiffs cannot claim any compensation and the plaintiffs have not produced any evidence for quantifying the compensation. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation. Thus, the Issue No.6 is answered.
17. Issue No.7 47/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022
(vii).Whether the suit is barred by Law of Limitation?
(a) The plaintiffs filed this Suit for the relief of a permanent injunction and for compensation, alleging that the defendants trespassed on the property and used the car parking.
(b) According to the plaintiffs, in the month of January 2019, the defendants occupied the car parking. According to the defendants, since the defendants have occupied the car parkings as per the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the Suit within three years from the date of the occupation. Therefore, the Suit is barred by limitation.
(c) Accordingly the plaintiff, this is a continuous cause of action, and thereby, as per Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Suit is filed within the limitation period. Since the plaintiffs and the defendants are continuously using the car parkings and the plaintiffs have not completely 48/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 ousted from the parking of the cars, the above-said acts amount to a continuous cause of action. Therefore, the Suit is not barred by limitation. Thus, the Issue No.7 is answered.
18. Issue No.8 “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as against the defendants as prayed for in the plaint?
(a) The plaintiffs have filed this Suit for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property and for damages.
(b) Already this Court decided in the sixth issue that the plaintiffs are not entitled to compensation since they are also using the car shed. The defendants admitted the use of the car parking and according to the plaintiffs, whenever the cars were taken out by the plaintiffs, the defendants used to park their cars in the Suit property. This Court in the previous issues 49/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 decided that the plaintiffs purchased the property through Sale Deed dated 10.02.2003, where the car parkings were also allotted in their favour and on the date of filing of the Suit, the plaintiffs were in possession of the property. Per contra, the defendants purchased the property with one car parking around the building area. Therefore, the defendants are liable to be restrained by the order of this Court from unlawfully using the car parking of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for the permanent injunction as against the defendants. Thus, the Issue No.8 is answered.
19.Issue No.9
(ix) To what other reliefs the parties are entitled for?
This Court in the previous issues 1 to 8 decided that the plaintiffs have purchased the Suit property along with the covered car parkings, whereas, the defendants were initially inducted as tenants without any car parking. However, the defendants have been using the car parking along with the plaintiffs without any rights over the Suit Schedule property, and the car 50/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 parkings of the defendants are available at around the building. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction and not entitled to the relief of damages since the plaintiffs are also using the said car parking. Therefore, the plaintiffs are only entitled for the decree for permanent injunction. Thus, the Issue No.09 is answered.
20. In the result:
(a) The Suit is decreed in respect of the relief of permanent injunction and the defendants are restrained from an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the property by parking their cars in the car shed.
(b) The Suit is dismissed in respect of damages.
(c) The plaintiffs are entitled to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.51/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 dk Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No P.DHANABAL J.
dk 52/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm ) CS No.120 of 2022 CS No.120 of 2022 and OA No.374 of 2022 and A Nos.3040 and 3042 of 2022 21.11.2025 53/53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/12/2025 08:27:08 pm )