Alagi Alamelu Achi vs Ponniah Mudaliar on 10 February, 1961
"Once the Court has found that the plaintiffs possession is wrongful, it immediately followed that such possession is not entitled to protection by an injunction, because such an order will be only assisting the plaintiffs in their wrongful possession. No Court ,can by its own order help a party who is found to be in wrongful possession as against the lawful owner. The fact that if the lawful owner were to institute a suit, he might possibly fail on the ground that he was not in possession within 12 years of suit, could make no difference and that cannot be a proper justification for the issue of an injunction virtually maintaining or advancing the wrongful act of the plaintiff. (vide Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Ponniah Mudaliar ). When there is a finding recorded in a regular suit which has been affirmed in second appeal by the Court to the effect that the plaintiffs are not in lawful possession of the property and it is not contended in the second round of litigation that the earlier litigation is a nullity for want of jurisdiction, no Court will be justified in granting .a temporary injunction on an interlocutor application. The question of balance of convenience or equity does not arise when there is as stated earlier a concluded finding, as between the parties that the plaintiffs arc not in lawful possession. If the plaintiffs are not in lawful possession, they cannot seek an order of interim injunction.