Madras High Court
G.Janobai vs V.N.Devadoss on 29 January, 2016
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 29.01.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA C.M.A. No.1955 of 2009 1.G.Janobai 2.M.K.Deenadayalu 3.M.K.Thulasidharan 4.M/s.Murali Brick Works 5.J.Vijayalakshmi 6.J.Sathya Narayana 7.S.Geetha Saraswathy .. Appellants Versus V.N.Devadoss .. Respondent PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(v) of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2008 made in I.A. No.1007 of 2008 in O.S. No.127 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Poonamallee. For Appellants : Mr.T.Viswanatha Rao For respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh J U D G M E N T
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by the appellants, is directed against the correctness of the impugned award dated 22.09.2008 made in I.A. No.1007 of 2008 in O.S. No.127 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Poonamallee.
2.The case of the appellants/defendants is that though the respondent/ plaintiff has been attempting to enter into the suit property high handedly and putting up stones in the suit property in addition to putting up fencing on all the four sides, the appellants/defendants have made a police complaint. But the police authorities are reluctant to take action in the matter, in view of the pendency of the suit viz. O.S. No.127 of 2006, which has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff, for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 12.12.1994, in which, an injunction application in I.A. No.1007 of 2008 in O.S. No.127 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Poonamallee was moved by the appellants/defendants, during the pendency of the suit seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent/plaintiff from in any manner entering into the suit property. Similarly, the appellants/ defendants have also filed a suit for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit properties have been taken away by the Government under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
3.As the Trial Court has refused to grant interim injunction on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff was in physical possession of the suit property, relying upon one of the clauses of the agreement dated 12.12.1994, challenging the correctness of the order refusing to grant interim injunction, the appellants/defendants have come to this Court.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants would submit that when the appellants/defendants had moved another suit seeking rejection of the plaint, the Trial Court has rejected the same and as against the said order, they have moved an appeal before this Court and as against the order passed by this Court, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) has also been filed and the same is posted on 08.02.2016 before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6.It is a clear case for rejection of the appeal. The reason is that when the respondent/plaintiff and the appellants/defendants have entered into the sale agreement on 12.12.1994 for sale of the suit property, though the appellants/defendants herein have received a sum of Rs.1,48,48,500/-, they have not come forward to execute and register the sale deed, despite the fact that the respondent/plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff has entered into the physical possession of the suit property and the same was brought to the notice of the Trial Court. Considering one of the clauses in the agreement dated 12.12.1994, the Trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that pursuant to the agreement dated 12.12.1994, the respondent/plaintiff had entered into the physical T.RAJA, J.
vga possession of the suit property and has refused to grant interim injunction. When there was an agreement dated 12.12.1994 reached its finality for sale of the suit property and pursuant thereto a sale consideration of Rs.1,48,48,500/-has been received by the appellants/defendants, the learned Trial Court having seen one of the clauses in the agreement putting the respondent/ plaintiff in possession of the suit property, has rightly refused to grant the relief of interim injunction and in any event as the matter is pending for Trial, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not call for interference. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
29.01.2016 Index : Yes / No vga To
1.The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Poonamallee.
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
C.M.A. No.1955 of 2009