ORDER:The plaintiffs in C.S.No.479 of 2005 have come forward with O.A.No.568 of 2005 and A.No.2775 of 2005 while the defendants in the said suit have come forward with A.No.2341 and 3947 of 2005. 2. The parties, viz, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants will be hereinafter referred to as “applicants-plaintiffs and respondents-defendants” respectively. 3. The applicants-plaintiffs have come forward with the suit in C.S.No.479 of 2005 for permanent injunction, to restrain the respondents-defendants and their men in any manner interfer ing with the applicants-plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of suit schedule ‘A’ property; and also for a mandatory injunction, to direct the respondents-defendants to deliver the original title deeds mentioned in suit ‘B’ Schedule. 4. In O.A.No.568 of 2005, the applicants-plaintiffs seek for grant of interim injunction to restrain the respondents-defendants from in any manner interfering with the applicants-plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘A’ schedule property. In this original application, an order of interim injunction was granted on 18.5.2005 by this Court. 5. Application No.2341 of 2005 has been filed by the respondents-defendants for vacating the above said order of interim injunction dated 18.5.2005. 6. Application No.2775 of 2005 has been filed by the applicants-plaintiffs seeking for interim mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendants to restore the original title deeds/documents mentioned in suit ‘B’ schedule to the custody of Shri N.S.Varadhachari, Advocate or to such other persons. 7. Application No.2775 of 2005 has been filed by the respondents-defendants seeking for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit ‘A’ schedule property and file a report as to the persons who are in actual possession of the said property. When the said application came up for hearing on 31.8.2005, Mr.Abdul Quddhose, learned Advocate was appointed as Commissioner to note down the real facts prevailing, as regards the nature of possession of the respondents-defendants, and submit his report. The Advocate-Commissioner has filed his report dated 2.9.2005 along with certain documents presented to him on behalf of the applicants-plaintiffs. 8. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the applicants-plaintiffs are the owners of the suit ‘A’ schedule property. On 15.12.1999, an agreement for sale was entered into between the applicants-plaintiffs through the 13th plaintiff who was holding a power of attorney of plaintiffs 1 to 12 and the respondents-defendants herein which has been filed as document No.3 along with the plaint. On 15.12.1999, an agreement for sale was entered into between the applicants-plaintiffs through the 13th plaintiff who was holding a power of attorney of plaintiffs 1 to 12 and the respondents-defendants herein which has been filed as document No.3 along with the plaint. The sale consideration was stated to have been agreed at a sum of Rs.2.50 crores. As per the said agreement, a sum of Rs.70 lakhs was paid by way of advance which was also duly stated in Clause (3) of the said document and as per Clause (7), it was agreed that the sale should be completed within 30 days of intimation of obtaining the necessary clearance for sale of the property including the order of the Court for sale of minor’s share. As per Clause (11), the vendors agreed to deliver vacant possession of the property described in ‘A’ Schedule of the plaint at the time of the registration of the sale deed. As per Clause (16), the vendors agreed to deliver the documents of title to Shri.N.S.Varadhachari, Advocate, for safe custody until completion of the sale. In the list of documents annexed to the said agreement for sale, dated 15.12.1999, it is specifically stated that: “The custody of the aforesaid documents with me is in trust for and on behalf of both the purchasers and vendors and the same shall be handed over on representation of both the purchasers and vendors jointly after the completion of the registration of the sale deed and other formalities. Sd/- N.S.Varadhachari, Advocate.” 9. The Office of the appropriate Authority of the Income Tax Department passed order under Sec.269-UL(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 expressing ‘no objection’ to the transfer of the property for apparent consideration of Rs.2.50 crores. The said document has been filed as document No.5, dated 15.3.2000. A copy of the said order has been sent to both the applicants-plaintiffs as well as respondents-defendants. Document No.6 is the order of this Court passed in O.P.No.355 of 2000, dated 24.7.2000 appointing the 10th plaintiffs as guardian of plaintiff 11 and 12 and also permitting her to sell the minors’ share in the suit schedule property with a direction to invest the value of each of the minors’ share amounting to Rs.6,94,444 in a nationalized Bank in fixed deposit for a period till the minors attain the age of majority i.e., completing 21 years. There was a further direction to produce the receipts of fixed deposit in this Court within a period of registration. 10. Apart from the agreement for sale, by a separate stamped letter dated 15.12.1999, the payment of sum of Rs.70 lakhs (Rs.20 lakhs in cash and 5 cheques each for Rs.10 lakhs bearing different dates) was also said to have been made to the 13th plaintiff. As per the said letter, the said sum of Rs.70,00,000 was paid and in the ‘reference column of the said letter, it is mentioned as “Fixtures and Furniture at 91, Poes Gardens, Chennai-600 086”. According to the learned senior counsel, the said payment was made towards the value of the furniture and fixtures in the said schedule property. 11. According to the applicants-plaintiffs, after the above referred to agreements and the payment of advance handing over the documents to the Advocate, Shri.N.S.Varadhachari and after obtaining ‘no objection’ from the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act and after getting necessary permission from this Court for disposing of the minors’ share, the respondents-defendants failed to pay the balance sale consideration as agreed to by them and complete the sale transaction. It is stated that in view of the delay caused by the respondents-defendants, further debts came to be incurred, which ultimately resulted in the creditors filing insolvency proceedings in I.P.Nos.77, 80, 55 and 87 of 2000, 99, 33 and 155 of 2001 and 10 of 2002. In the said proceedings, the father of the applicants-plaintiffs along with some of the other plaintiffs, came to be adjudged as ‘Insolvent’ and the official Assignee was directed to take over the assets and other effects of the insolvent, to administer the estate in a regular manner for the benefit of the creditors. It is common ground that the said order of adjudication was subsequently annulled. 12. According to the applicants-plaintiffs, till 21st April, 2003, the respondents-defendants were not willing to pay the balance consideration. While so, the respondents-defendants forcibly took possession of the documents of title on 13.12.2004 which were entrusted with Shri N.S.Varadhachari in trust on behalf of both the parties till the completion of sale transaction. It is stated that the said fact was also intimated to Official Assignee on 18.12.2004. While so, the respondents-defendants forcibly took possession of the documents of title on 13.12.2004 which were entrusted with Shri N.S.Varadhachari in trust on behalf of both the parties till the completion of sale transaction. It is stated that the said fact was also intimated to Official Assignee on 18.12.2004. The Official Assignee is stated to have sent a communication to the respondents-defendants on 4.1.2005 informing them that since the applicants-plaintiffs have been declared as ‘insolvent’, the respondents-defendants cannot deal with the property and the property was vested with the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee was stated to have asked the respondents-defendants to deliver back the documents of title. It is stated that on behalf of the respondents-defendants, a reply was sent through their counsel on 16.1.2005 stating that they were already put in possession by the applicants-plaintiffs on 14.6.2001. 13. The applicants-plaintiffs, while denying the said stand of the respondents-defendants, contended that they attempted to trespass into the suit ‘A’ schedule property on 31.1.2005, that they did trespass into the property along with their henchmen, that the first plaintiff who was living along with his wife and unmarried daughter was locked inside the ‘A’ schedule house, thereby preventing them from coming out of the house, that by duly informing 13th plaintiff about the said act, a police complaint was made on 13.1.2005 to E-3 Teynampet Police Station, pursuant to which, the Inspector of Police also advised the parties to maintain status quo till the matters are settled through due process of law. It is stated that on 14.1.2005, at the instance of the first defendant certain persons performed some pooja in the first floor of said ‘A’ schedule property in spite of protest of the plaintiff which was again brought to the notice of the police authorities followed with a complaint dated 14.1.2005. It is stated that again on 15.1.2005, the defendants along with their henchmen opened the lockers of the room in the first floor for which also, a complaint was made by the plaintiffs on 15.1.2005. It is further stated that on 19.1.2005, a further complaint was lodged with the Commissioner of Police for taking immediate action to protect the life and property of the first plaintiff and the members of the family. It is also stated that subsequently also, the defendants broke open the locks in the first floor and trespassed into the same. It is further stated that on 19.1.2005, a further complaint was lodged with the Commissioner of Police for taking immediate action to protect the life and property of the first plaintiff and the members of the family. It is also stated that subsequently also, the defendants broke open the locks in the first floor and trespassed into the same. The grievance of the plaintiffs was that none of the complaints evoked any response from the police authorities. It is stated that they also filed a writ petition for redressal of their grievance in W.P.No.12753 of 2005 in which the first defendant was made as one of the respondents wherein, this Court directed the police authorities to take immediate action in accordance with law after conducting necessary investigation. 14. To sum up, according to the applicants-plaintiffs since the respondents-defendants failed to perform their part of contract, they have lost their right under the agreement for sale dated 15.12.1999 and the said right is also barred by limitation and their present attempt of taking forcible possession was to defeat the lawful rights of the applicants-plaintiffs. 15. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants-plaintiffs contended that since the applicants-plaintiffs never handed over possession of the ‘A’ schedule property to the respondents-defendants on 14.6.2001 as claimed by them and since they failed to perform their part of the contract within 30 days from the date of intimation of ‘no objection’ from the appropriate authority of the Income Tax Department as well as the Court permission for the sale of minors’ share, the respondents-defendants have lost their right under the agreement and in the said circumstances, the unlawful trespass by the respondents-defendants into the first floor of the schedule A property cannot be permitted. The learned counsel by referring to the report of the Advocate-Commissioner, contended that the report would disclose that the respondents-defendants are not in possession of even the first floor in the manner as claimed by them, that a reading of the report of the Advocate-Commissioner would only show that no lawful possession was ever handed over to the respondents-defendants by the applicants-plaintiffs. The learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, (2004)3 S.C.C. 137 , in support of his contention that a ‘trespasser has no right as against the true owner’. 16. The learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, (2004)3 S.C.C. 137 , in support of his contention that a ‘trespasser has no right as against the true owner’. 16. As against the above submissions, Mr.R.Krishnaswamy learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants would contend that admittedly as on date, the agreement was not validly terminated by the applicants-plaintiffs, that the receipt of payment of Rs.1.40 crores having not been disputed by the applicants-plaintiffs, that the order of adjudication in the pending insolvency proceedings is not in dispute that the pendency of certain other insolvency proceedings is also not in dispute and in the said circumstances, according to the learned counsel, when the respondents-defendants are in possession of the first floor of the ‘A’ schedule property, the stand of the respondents-defendants that they were put in possession by the applicants-plaintiffs themselves on 14.6.2001 was true. According to the learned counsel, inasmuch as the applicants-plaintiffs were entangled in the insolvency proceedings, they were unable to proceed with the performance of their part of the contract in executing the sale deed and therefore, handing over possession was resorted to by the applicants-plaintiffs only to ensure and protect the rights of the respondents-defendants. 17. The learned senior counsel would contend that after putting the respondents-defendants in possession as early as in June 2001, with a view to frustrate the claims of the respondents-defendants, the applicants-plaintiffs under the guise of performing the funeral ceremony of their father Thiru. A.N.Srinivasaka Nadar who died on 1.11.2004 gained entry into ‘A’ schedule property and are now attempting to forcibly throw away the respondents-defendants. In support of the said stand, the learned counsel relied upon a complaint dated 11.12.2004 filed on behalf of the respondents-defendants with the police authorities. According to the learned senior counsel, the compliance of two conditions, viz., approval of no objection by the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act and permission by the Court in respect of sale of the minors’ share were not duly intimated to the respondents-defendants. 18. According to the learned senior counsel, the compliance of two conditions, viz., approval of no objection by the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act and permission by the Court in respect of sale of the minors’ share were not duly intimated to the respondents-defendants. 18. It is relevant to state that in the order of the Income Tax Department dated 15.3.2000, it is specifically mentioned that a copy of the said order has been forwarded to the respondents-defendants and similarly, in the order of this Court dated 24.7.2000, it is pointed out that the respondents-defendants filed affidavits and other documents in O.P.No.355 of 2000 in order to enable the applicants-plaintiffs to obtain the permission of this Court. According to the learned senior counsel, the suit for specific performance though was initiated by filing a plaint into this Court in January, 2005, due to certain objections raised by the office, the same could not be numbered and brought before the Court for proper orders. It is, however, stated that the possession of ‘A’ schedule property was taken only at the instance of the applicants-plaintiffs and was not by way of trespassing into the property. 19. As regards getting possession of the documents/title deeds by the respondents-defendants from Mr.N.S.Varadhachari, the learned senior counsel contended that the same were willingly handed over by the advocate Mr.N.S.Varadhachari and no force was applied on him for taking possession of those documents. In fine, it was contended that the applicants-plaintiffs are not entitled for the injunction as prayed for and therefore, the interim injunction granted on 18.5.2005 is liable to be vacated. 20. On consideration of the respective submissions of the parties, the crucial factor to be found out, is, as to whether the respondents-defendants were put in possession by the applicants-plaintiffs themselves on 14.6.2001 as claimed by the respondents-defendants. For ascertaining the said factor when the various documents relied upon by the applicants-plaintiffs as well as the respondents-defendants are considered, it is admitted by the respondents-defendants that there is no document pursuant to which, such possession was handed over to them by the applicants-plaintiffs. According to the respondents-defendants, after 2000, even the applicants-plaintiffs were not in physical possession of the suit ‘A’ schedule property and that after handing over possession on 14.6.2001, they gained entry into the property only in November, 2004 when their father expired that too with the permission of the respondents-defendants. According to the respondents-defendants, after 2000, even the applicants-plaintiffs were not in physical possession of the suit ‘A’ schedule property and that after handing over possession on 14.6.2001, they gained entry into the property only in November, 2004 when their father expired that too with the permission of the respondents-defendants. Significantly, it was also contended that the possession was necessarily to be handed over to the respondents-defendants by the applicants-plaintiffs themselves inasmuch as they were unable to perform their part of contract in view of the pending insolvency proceedings. It was stated that at no point of time, the respondents-defendants were intimated of the details of the insolvency proceedings. It was also claimed that the obtaining of ‘no objection to transfer the property’ from the appropriate authority of the Income Tax Department and the Court’s permission for the disposal of the minors’ share was also not duly intimated to the respondents-defendants. According to the respondents-defendants, in view of such deficiencies on the part of the applicants-plaintiffs, they voluntarily handed over possession to the respondents-defendants on 14.6.2001 in order to show their bona fides to complete the sale as per the agreement for sale dated 15.12.1999. 21. As against the above stand of the respondents-defendants, according to the applicants-plaintiffs after the initial payment of Rs.70 lakhs as per the agreement for sale and another sum of Rs.70 lakhs towards the value of the furniture and fixtures in the said ‘A’ schedule property, the respondents-defendants never came forward to perform their part of the contract. Even though, two vital conditions, viz., order of the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act and the permission of this Court for disposal of the minors’ share were duly complied with by the applicants-plaintiffs, it was pointed out that the ignorance now pleaded as regards the compliance of those conditions is not only not true but has been made only to defeat the lawful claims of the applicants-plaintiffs. As regards the insolvency proceedings also, according to the applicants-plaintiffs, the respondents-defendants were aware of those proceedings inasmuch as after the adjudication in the insolvency proceedings, the Official Assignee himself called upon the respondents-defendants to hand over the documents. 22. On an analysis of the various above factors, I find force in the stand of the applicants-plaintiffs. As regards the insolvency proceedings also, according to the applicants-plaintiffs, the respondents-defendants were aware of those proceedings inasmuch as after the adjudication in the insolvency proceedings, the Official Assignee himself called upon the respondents-defendants to hand over the documents. 22. On an analysis of the various above factors, I find force in the stand of the applicants-plaintiffs. In respect of the stand of the respondents-defendants that they were put in possession by the applicants-plaintiffs themselves on 14.6.2001, except the ipse dixit statement of the respondents-defendants, there is nothing on record to support the said stand. In fact, only in the reply dated 16.1.2005 to the Official Assignee, the said fact has been mentioned. At no point of time prior to the said document, there was any reference to the said factor. When the respondents-defendants had entered into an agreement for sale for the purchase of property for a sale consideration of Rs.2.50 crores, the least that can be expected from the respondents-defendants when they claim that they were put into lawful possession as early as on 14.6.2001 is, that the same should have been supported by a valid document in order to rule out any possibility of any controversy being raised at any point of time subsequent to that date. More so, when the respondents-defendants were aware of the insolvency proceedings as could be seen from paras.7 and 8 of the plaint filed by the respondents-defendants in Dairy No.3132 of 2005 which reads as under: "7. The plaintiffs are informed that late A.N.Srinivasaga Nadar and the defendants 2 and 3 were carrying on businees under the name and style of M/s.A.N.Srinivasaga Nadar and sons in Partnership with one Kannappan and Mohan. They appeared to have suffered several decrees at the instance of several creditors. Pursuant to the above decrees, the creditors appears to have claimed that the Partnership Firm and its partners had committed acts of insolvency by failing to pay the decree debts, and consequently, initiated proceedings under the Presidency Town Insolvency Act before this Hon’ble Court in I.P.No.80 of 2000 etc., long after the suit agreement. The firm and its partners were adjudicated as Insolvent by an order of this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the late A.N.Srinivasaga Nadar and the defendants 2 and 3 have filed petitions to set aside the order of adjudication and the same are pending. The firm and its partners were adjudicated as Insolvent by an order of this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the late A.N.Srinivasaga Nadar and the defendants 2 and 3 have filed petitions to set aside the order of adjudication and the same are pending. The plaintiffs are informed that adjudication in some of the Insolvency Petitions had also been set aside. The 14th defendant 2 and 3 and late A.N.Srinivasaga Nadar is hence made a party to this suit as he is also bound by the suit agreement dated 15.12.1999. "8. Since the plaintiffs had made the payment of Rs.1.40 crores (Rupees ONE CRORE FORTY LAKHS) and the defendants were bargaining for time to complete the Registration, the plaintiffs required of them to hand over possession of the premises to them. The suit property was not occupied by any one and it was lying vacant. The defendants handed over the keys to the suit property to the plaintiffs on 14.6.2001 and since then, the plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit property." 23. A reading of the above said paragraphs makes it clear that the respondents-defendants were aware of the creditworthiness of the applicants-plaintiffs right from the beginning, i.e., when the agreement for sale was entered into in December, 1999. Therefore, it is very hard to believe the present submission made on behalf of the respondents-defendants that they came to know about the insolvency proceedings only when the Official Assignee sent a notice to them. The stand of the respondents-defendants that they were not aware of the clearance granted to transfer the property by the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act as well as the permission of this Court for the sale of minors’ share, has also been found to be ‘incorrect statements’. As has been observed earlier both in the order issued by the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act expressing ‘no objection for transfer of the property’ as well as in the order of this Court in O.P.No.355 of 2000, dated granting permission for sale of the minors’ share, there is a specific reference to the respondents-defendants. In the order of the appropriate Authority, it is stated that acopy of that order has been forwarded to them. In the order of this Court in O.P.No.355 of 2000, dated 24.7.2000 it is specifically mentioned that the respondents-defendants filed an affidavit in support of the application seeking permission. In the order of the appropriate Authority, it is stated that acopy of that order has been forwarded to them. In the order of this Court in O.P.No.355 of 2000, dated 24.7.2000 it is specifically mentioned that the respondents-defendants filed an affidavit in support of the application seeking permission. Therefore, the said stand of the respondents-defendants has also been found to be an incorrect statement when they said that they were never informed about the compliance of those conditions, in order to state that there was no occasion for them to perform their part of contract as per Clause (7) of the agreement for sale dated 15.12.1999. In the said clause, it is specifically mentioned that “the sale should be completed within 30 days of intimation of obtaining the necessary clearance for sale of the property including order of Court for sale of minors’ share”. Apparently, to cover up their lapses, respondents-defendants have come forward with a story that they were not aware of the compliance of those conditions and therefore, there was no occasion for them to perform their part of contract. When once it is found that the respondents-defendants were fully aware of the compliance of both the conditions and if according to the respondents-defendants, they were keen in getting the sale completed as per the agreement, it is not known why the respondents-defendants have not come forward with the suit for specific performance; which according to them they have preferred in January, 2005, at the earliest point of time in order to show their readiness and willingness in performing their part of contract. The contention of the respondents-defendants that the pendency of the insolvency proceedings was an impediment, it will have to be stated that even as on date, according to the respondents-defendants, certain other insolvency proceedings are still pending as against some of the applicants-plaintiffs, and when the respondents-defendants could file their plaint into this Court in January, 2005, there is no reason why it should not have been done at the earliest point of time. 24. All the above referred to factors only lead to the conclusion that the respondents-defendants were not truthful in making any of the statements before this Court. A fortiori, the claim that they were put in possession by the applicants-plaintiffs themselves on 14.6.2001 cannot also be believed on the mere ipse dixit statement made on behalf of the respondents-defendants. 25. 24. All the above referred to factors only lead to the conclusion that the respondents-defendants were not truthful in making any of the statements before this Court. A fortiori, the claim that they were put in possession by the applicants-plaintiffs themselves on 14.6.2001 cannot also be believed on the mere ipse dixit statement made on behalf of the respondents-defendants. 25. Having regard to the manner in which, the respondents-defendants attempted to shift their stand in order to suit their connivance as regards the different situations, I am of the view, it will be wholly unsafe to accept the stand of the respondents-defendants that they were validly put in possession by the applicants-plaintiffs on 14.6.2001. When according to the respondents-defendants, the possession was handed over to them by the applicants-plaintiffs themselves on a specific date, viz., 14.6.2001, it is not known on what basis such a definite date was mentioned in the absence of any supporting material to that effect. As I pointed out earlier, only in the reply dated 16.1.2005 to the Official Assignee, the said date came to be mentioned by the respondents-defendants. Only other place, where it has been mentioned is, in the plaint filed in Dairy No.3132 of 2005, which plaint is also stated to have been prepared in January, 2005 while the filing of it, is stated to be 7.2.2005. Therefore, on no date prior to January, 2005, the said date was ever mentioned in any other documents. If the date so mentioned by the respondents-defendants is to be believed, then it can be only based on the memory of the respondents-defendants in the absence of any other document to support that date. It is very hard to believe that the respondents-defendants were able to memorize that date and reveal the same after four long years without any acceptable material evidence. Therefore, the theory propounded on behalf of the respondents-defendants that they were validly put in possession by the applicants-plaintiffs on 14.6.2001 is only a ‘figment of imagination’ and therefore, there is absolutely no truth in the said stand of the respondents-defendants. Therefore, the theory propounded on behalf of the respondents-defendants that they were validly put in possession by the applicants-plaintiffs on 14.6.2001 is only a ‘figment of imagination’ and therefore, there is absolutely no truth in the said stand of the respondents-defendants. When once the said conclusion can be safely arrived at, the only other question is as to whether thepresent possession of the aunt of the second respondent in the first floor who is stated to be aged about 50 years as per the Advocate-Commissioner’s report can never said to be a possession of the respondents-defendants in the normal course. In fact, the Advocate-Commissioner came to be appointed only at the instance of the respondents-defendants in their application filed in A.No.3947 of 2005, wherein , they prayed for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the suit ‘A’ schedule mentioned property and file a report in regard to in whose possession, the suit ‘A’ schedule property is lying. 26. On a perusal of the report of the Advocate-Commissioner, I find that while the possession of the applicants-plaintiffs are stated to be on a permanent basis, the presence of the second respondent’s aunt was found to be in a manner which can never be held to be the normal course of one’s living in an abode. In the words of the Advocate-Commissioner: “At first sight, I find that all the above mentioned rooms in the entire ground floor are kept tidy and is being used by the first plaintiffs family permanently. The first plaintiff also introduced me to his wife and daughter during the course of my inspection. The first plaintiff furnished photocopies of the ration card, property tax collection receipt dated 26.3.2002 and 12.3.2005, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board receipt dated 27.3.2003 and the electricity meter card for the entire suit schedule premises for the purpose of proving the plaintiff’s possession. It was also informed by the first plaintiff that there is only a single electricity meter for the entire premises and that he is only paying the electricity charges for the entire suit schedule premises which is also not disputed by the defendant’s counsel. There is only one stair case which leads to the first floor. The only stair case available is found in the hall of the ground floor. There is only one stair case which leads to the first floor. The only stair case available is found in the hall of the ground floor. Any person occupying the first floor can enter the first floor only through the ground floor which is under the occupation of the first plaintiff.” 27. According to the learned Advocate-Commissione, he found two persons, one lady by name, Ms.V.Seetha and another man, by name Gopi. The said lady Seetha told the Advocate-Commissioner that she used to sleep in the hall and get food from outside except making tea or coffee, which she makes by herself with the help of a kerosene stove which is found in the big hall and that there is no kitchen in the entire first floor. 28. As regards the other person, Gopi, according to the learned Advocate-Commissioner, he himself informed the Advocate-Commissioner that he was employed with Jayashree International, a cinema company in which the first respondent-defendant is Proprietrix and that he came to visit Seetha who is stated to be sick. 29.On a perusal of the Advocate-Commissioner’s report, it is very difficult to accept the case of the respondents-defendants that they were put in possession as early as on 14.6.2001, yet only a relative of theirs that too a lady of age 50 years was permitted to use the first floor of the premises with very meagre facilities and that her food was to be arranged every time from outside. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants-plaintiffs, there was no objection to the report of the Advocate-Commissioner filed before this Court. If the aunt of the second respondent-defendant was allowed to live in the premises on a regular basis, it is quite unbelievable that the said lady was not even having the basic amenities of a regular bed room and a proper kitchen for preparing her food. On the other hand, the documents annexed to the Commissioner’s report disclose that the premises is under the occupation and possession of the applicants/plaintiffs right from the beginning. 30. In the above said background of the report of the Advocate-Commissioner, also when the stand of the applicants-plaintiffs that the respondents-defendants trespassed the suit ‘A’ schedule property with the aid of their henchmen is considered, prima facie, it will have to be concluded that the said allegations cannot be rejected outright as without any basis. 30. In the above said background of the report of the Advocate-Commissioner, also when the stand of the applicants-plaintiffs that the respondents-defendants trespassed the suit ‘A’ schedule property with the aid of their henchmen is considered, prima facie, it will have to be concluded that the said allegations cannot be rejected outright as without any basis. Further, the complaints preferred by the applicants-plaintiffs on various dates between 13.1.2005 and 26.4.2005 apart from their approach this Court by way of filing a criminal original petition in March, 2005 and the writ petition in April, 2005 prior to the filing of the present suit, only to go show that the applicants-plaintiffs were desperately knocking at the doors of the various authorities including the judicial forum for the protection of their rights. 31. When the applicants-plaintiffs were facing insolvency proceedings, it cannot be said that they were so affluent to engage hooligans to fight against respondents-defendants in order to safeguard their interests. Per contra, the stand of the applicants-plaintiffs that the respondents-defendants who were stated to be affluent people barged into their premises on 13.2.2005 along with a group of their henchmen is quite an acceptable statement and cannot be rejected so very lightly. In this context, when the letter of Shri N.S.Varadhachari, dated 14.12.2004 is considered, I find that the respondents-defendants are really capable of taking law into their own hands in order to achieve their objectives. In his letter dated 14.12.2004 addressed to the 13th plaintiff, a copy of which is stated to have been marked to respondents-defendants, the learned advocate Shri N.S.Varadhachari has mentioned as under: " . . . However, requests were made by purchasers to hand over the title deeds to them, to which, I did not agree. The purchasers came on 13.12.2004 and gave a letter stated to have been dictated by the lawyer for Mr.V.Ganesh, the second purchaser, that Mr.S.Govindaswami, power agent of the vendors, has not come forward to execute the sale deed in spite of several reminders and personal persuasion and that he has been trying to negotiate the sale of the property to some other people and that I must hand over the title deeds immediately without any further delay. It was also stated that they had initiated proceeding against Mr.S.Govindaswami, Mr.Nalla Alagu and others legally and criminally under Court of Law. It was also stated that they had initiated proceeding against Mr.S.Govindaswami, Mr.Nalla Alagu and others legally and criminally under Court of Law. Though I refused to receive the letter, I was forced to accept the same. I sought for time to get acceptance from the vendors as contemplated, but I was not allowed to contract anybody. I wanted to know the name of the counsel who is supposed to have been given the idea and dictated the draft of the letter over phone (as represented by the purchasers), they did not choose to reveal the name. I could not get any independent advice. I was perplexed in the manner of behavior of the purchasers. They pressurized me to hand over the documents and took away the documents. However, a list was prepared and both the purchasers signed in the acknowledgment of having received the original documents." 32. Even to this letter, a reply came to be sent by the respondents-defendants after 10 days i.e., on 27.12.2004 refuting the allegations of Shri N.S.Varadhachari, Advocate. If really such serious allegations made by Mr.N.S.Varadha-chari were not true, it is quite amazing that the respondents-defendants did not choose to send their reply immediately, but took their own sweet-will to refute the allegations. It is also relevant to mention that Shri N.S.Varadhachari was admittedly the Advocate of the respondents-defendants when the agreement for sale was entered into. 33. All the above said factors only go to show that the respondents-defendants will go to any extent and take law into their own hands for the purpose of achieving their ends. I am afraid that such a conduct of the respondents-defendants when once brought to the notice of this Court can ever be condoned. A responsible counsel, viz., Shri N.S.Varadhachari has put in no uncertain terms that he was perplexed with the manner and behavior of the respondents and that they pressurized him and forced him to part with the documents which documents were entrusted to him at the instance of the applicants-plaintiffs as well as the respondents-defendants jointly with the specific understanding in the agreement for sale, that ‘the documents shall be handed over on representation of both the purchasers and vendors jointly after the completion of the registration of the sale deed and other formalities’. The conduct of the respondents-defendants in having resorted to such forceful removal of the documents from the possession of Shri N.S.Varadhachari cannot be ignored lightly. 34. From an analysis of the above referred to factors which are all borne out by records and beyond controversy, there can be one and only conclusion that the version of the applicants- plaintiffs that the respondents-defendants trespassed into the suit ‘A’ schedule property and took possession forcibly merits acceptance. The contrary version of the respondents- defendants that they were put in possession by the applicants-plaintiffs is wholly untrue and is to be stated only to be rejected. When once such a conclusion is inescapable, the question, whether, the respondents-defendants can be allowed to remain in possession and the applicants-plaintiffs to remain as silent spectators. The hard fact remains that the various attempts made by the applicants-plaintiffs through the law enforcing machinery, viz., the police authorities to check and correct the high handed actions of the respondents-defendants have been proved to be futile. If really, the respondents-defendants wanted to enforce their rights based on the agreement for sale dated 15.12.1999, they should have taken the royal road of working out their remedy through the Court of law. Therefore, the action of the respondents-defendants in having barged into the suit ‘A’ schedule property in an unlawful manner is nothing but a trespass and their continued possession as on date by retaining Ms. Seetha who is stated to be the aunt of the second respondent-defendant cannot be held to be a lawful one. 35. Having regard to the above conclusions, it can be held that the grant of the order of interim injunction ordered on 18.5.2005 is valid inasmuch as the applicants-plaintiffs have not only made out a prima facie case, but the balance of convenience is also absolutely in their favour. Further if the illegal action of the respondents-defendants in having taken forcible possession of the first floor of the suit ‘A’ schedule property is allowed to continue, that will only lead to the conclusion that any unlawful action can be condoned with impunity and the other suffering party should be made to put up with the said hardship for no fault of theirs. Therefore, that will ultimately cause irretrievable injury to the applicants-plaintiffs. Therefore, that will ultimately cause irretrievable injury to the applicants-plaintiffs. Therefore, I am of the view that while making the interim injunction absolute, in order to give effect to the said order granted earlier on 18.5.2005, the respondents-defendants and their men, agents, or anyone acting on their behalf including so-called Ms.Seetha or any other personnel or security watchman who are present in the premises of ‘A’ schedule property at the instance of the respondents-defendants are directed to forthwith withdraw and remove from the suit ‘A’ Schedule property and put the applicants-plaintiffs in absolute possession free from any kind of hindrance. Further, since I have also found that the respondents-defendants have taken the documents forcibly from Shri N.S.Varadhachari on 13.12.2004, it is imperative that the respondents-defendants are also directed to file all those documents into this Court to be kept in safe custody pending disposal of the suit. Inasmuch as the possession of all those documents was taken away by the respondents-defendants from Shri N.S. Varadhachari in a high handed manner and in total violation of Clause (16) contained in the agreement for sale dated 15.12.1999. I think it proper to keep them in Court custody instead of allowing them to be kept with anybody else. 36. In this context, when a reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants-plaintiffs reported in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner and others, (2004)3 S.C.C.137, is made, in paras.25 and 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated the legal possession as under: "25. Now the other aspect of the matter needs to be noted. Assuming a trespasser ousted can seek restoration of possession under Sec.6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, can the trespasser seek injunction against the true owner? This question does not entirely depend upon Sec.6 of the Specific Relief Act, but mainly depends upon certain general principles applicable to the law of injunctions and as to the scope of the exercise of discretion while granting injunction. In Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corporation, (1995)3 s.c.c.33, it was held, after referring to Woodroffe: Law Relating to Injunctions; Goyle L.C.: Law of Injunction; Bean, David: Injunction; Joyce: Injunctions and other leading articles on the subject that the appellant who was a trespasser in possession could not seek injunction against the true owner. In Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corporation, (1995)3 s.c.c.33, it was held, after referring to Woodroffe: Law Relating to Injunctions; Goyle L.C.: Law of Injunction; Bean, David: Injunction; Joyce: Injunctions and other leading articles on the subject that the appellant who was a trespasser in possession could not seek injunction against the true owner. In that context this Court quoted Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993)3 S.C.C.161, wherein, it was observed that injunction is discretionary and that: (S.C.C. page.175, para 31): "Judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or to perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who approaches the Court." "26. Reference was also made to Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, (1992)1 S.C.C. 719 in regard to the meaning of the words "prima facie case" and "balance of convenience" and observe in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. Pune Municipal Corporation, (1995)3 s.c.c.33 that: (S.C.C. page.39, para. 9): "9. it is settled law that no injunction could be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons in unlawful possession" 37. For the foregoing reasons, this Court makes the following order: In the result, (a) Original Application No.568 of 2005 is allowed and the interim injunction granted on 18.5.2005 is made absolute and the respondents-defendants are directed to hand over possession of the first floor of the suit ‘A’ Schedule property to the applicants-plaintiffs forthwith by withdrawing all their personnel including the aunt of the second respondent-defendant by name Ms.Seetha as well as any other personnel engaged by them and kept in the suit ‘A’ Schedule property as on date. (b) Application No.2341 of 2005 is dismissed. (c) Application No.2775 of 2005 is allowed and the respondents-defendants are directed to restore the suit ‘B’ Schedule documents by depositing the same with the Deputy Registrar (Original Side) after due verification of all the documents that are removed from the custody of Mr.N.S.Varadhachari along with a list and with a memo for safe custody in this Court till the disposal of the suit; and (d) Application No.3947 of 2005 is closed with a direction to the applicants therein, to pay a further sum of Rs.5000 towards final remuneration to the Advocate-Commissioner. The payment should be made within one week from this date. (e) There will be no order as to costs.