JUDGMENT :- Schedule of property All that piece and parcel of land of a total extent of 42 acres 53 cents comprised in (Old Survey Nos.227/3, 229/1A, 229/2, 230/1, 230/2, 230/3, 230/4, 230/5, 230/7A, 230/8, 231/2) TS Nos and Block Nos as detailed below, in Koyambedu Village (formerly Thirumangalam Village) Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai. Block No. Town Survey Numbers Extent (in acres) 26 1/1 1.83 26 1/2 2.25 26 2/3 3.27 26 2/4 13.11 26 4/2 0.45 27 3/2 18.26 27 3/3 2.57 27 4/3 0.32 27 7/2 0.47 42.53 Situate with the Sub-Registration District of Anna Nagar and Registration District of Chennai North and bounded as follows: North by : CPWD Quarters South by : Coovam River East by : 100 ft wide Jawaharlal Nedru Ring Road and Pillaiyar Koil Street West by : Padi Village This Original Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order: Pending suit for recovery of damages of Rs.10.00 crores and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from publishing or circulating any false or defamatory or derogatory statement, notices and claims pertaining to the suit property, the plaintiff has come up with the above application seeking an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent from publishing or circulating any false, defamatory or derogatory statements, relating to the suit schedule property. 2. I have heard Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff and Mr. K. Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant. 3. 2. I have heard Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff and Mr. K. Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant. 3. The case of the plaintiff proceeds as follows: (1) that they are carrying on the business of development of properties, townships and residential and commercial complexes in several cities in India; (b) that the plaintiff is engaged in the development of a township on a vast extent of very valuable land at Anna Nagar and the township is named as “Metrozone”; (c) that the said project land was purchased under five sale deeds, all dated 02.2.2006, registered as document Nos.980, 981, 982, 1084 and 1085 of 2006, in the office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, from a company by name Sri Krishna Tiles & Properties (madras) Pvt. Ltd.; (d) that the defendant is a land grabber, engaged in all sorts of criminal activities, such as fraud, forgery, manipulation of documents etc.; (e) that in 1993, the defendant was arrested for the alleged offences of forgery, impersonation, criminal trespass and land grabbing, in respect of a land in Thiruvottiur High Road; (f) that in July 2005, criminal proceedings were initiated against the defendant for forgery and impersonation in respect of 13 Indian Overseas Bank demand drafts to the tune of Rs.75.00 lacs; (g) that during the year 2008-09, the defendant was arrested and detained under Act 14 of 1982, for land grabbing, blackmailing and other activities; (h) that the plaintiff’s predecessors in title, M/s. Sri Krishna Tiles & Potteries (madras) Pvt. Ltd. Themselves initiated criminal proceedings against the defendant in 2002, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471, IPC; (i) that with a view to create hurdles in the implementation of the Metrozone development project by the plaintiff, the defendant initiated directly or indirectly, several legal proceedings, either by himself or through his associates and accomplices; (j) that one such suit in O.S.No.5836 of 1998 on the file of the XVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, filed by one B. Balakrishnan alias Parthe Baskar, was withdrawn by him on 20.10.2000, after the application for injunction was dismissed on a finding that the documents were fabricated by him; (k) that after the withdrawal of O.S.No.5836 of 1998, the said Balakrishnan created an agreement of sale in favour of the defendant in respect of the very same property and filed another suit in O.S.No.3778 of 2002 on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, but the same was dismissed for default on 23.8.2005, after the application for injunction was dismissed; (l) that the defendant himself filed a suit in O.S.No.566 of 2006 against the plaintiff’s predecessor seeking a decree of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction, but the plaint in the said suit was rejected in an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC; (m) that another suit filed by the defendant in O.S.No.567 of 2006, against one A.S. Muthusamy and others, was also rejected on 29.01.2008; (n) that a suit filed by the defendant in C.S.No.116 of 2007 on the file of this Court was withdrawn on 12.7.2009, after an application for rejection of the plaint was filed; (o) that the defendant issued legal notices dated 23.5.2008 and 05.5.2009 through different counsel and addressed copies of the notices to various statutory authorities; (p) that the legal notice dated 05.5.2009 intended to create an impression as though it was issued under instructions from the defendant as well as one A.S. Muthusamy, one of the plaintiff’s predecessor in title, but the said A.S. Muthusamy clarified that he never instructed any one to issue any notice; (q) that the defendant thereafter circulated notices dated 01.11.2010 and 04.11.2010 to 18 institutions, including statutory authorities, Government departments and financial institutions; (r) that all the litigations and legal notices issued by the defendant were intended to harm the reputation of the plaintiff and to sabotage the Metrozone project promoted by the plaintiff; and (s) that the plaintiff has suffered, serious prejudices, hardship and put to a lot of financial implications arising out of malicious campaign by the defendant. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by him to the application for interim injunction, the defendant has contended as follows: (a) that the sale of the property by M/s. Krishna Tiles in favour of the plaintiff is ab initio void, since the properties were under acquisition, under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (ceiling and Regulation) Act, though an exemption had been obtained by Mr. A.S. Muthusamy, subsequently in 1995; (b) that the exemption itself was obtained by Mr. A. Muthusamy by misrepresentation; (c) that irrespective of any representation made by him to various authorities, the authorities like CMDA have been independently preventing any unauthorized construction by the plaintiff; (d) that though the plaintiff offered to purchase the property from their predecessors for sum of Rs.150.60 crores, they had taken a loan of Rs.400 crores from the banks; (e) that in respect of a portion of the property, a special pending on the file of the Supreme Court and the Court had granted an interim order of status quo, without reference to which the plaintiff is dealing with the property; (f) that the original owner Mr. A.S. Muthusamy had given a General Power of Attorney to one Mr. G.N. Pandian, who misled the authorities and obtained exemptions of the land from the Urban Land Ceiling Act and also created 25 sale deeds in favour of his kith and kin and henchmen, by fraudulent means: (g) that in view of the fraudulent activities of Mr. G.N. Pandian, the original owner Mr. A.S. Muthusamy, cancelled the power in his favour and executed a fresh power to this defendant; (h) that the rights of Mr. G.N. Pandian, the original owner Mr. A.S. Muthusamy, cancelled the power in his favour and executed a fresh power to this defendant; (h) that the rights of Mr. A.S. Muthusamy (the original owner) got cleared, after the abolition of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, making the sale agreement entered into by him with this defendant valid and binding; (i) that several news items which appeared in the press would show that the property acquired by the plaintiff is clouded with encumbrances; (j) that at the instances of a third party, a criminal complaint was lodged against M/s. Krishna Tiles (plaintiff’s predecessor); (k) that though the said complaint was quashed by this Court, the order was set aside by the Supreme Court with a direction to the Police to investigate; (l) that the plaintiff cannot avoid fair criticism and ward off and proceedings initiated by this defendant to safeguard his rights; (m) that the plaintiff is a speculative dealer in real estate, engaged in purchasing properties involved in litigation; (n) at the time when the plaintiff purchased the property, it was under acquisition and hence, the sale deeds were illegal and null and void; (o) that criminal cases to which references have been made are either pending investigation/trial or resulted in acquittal; (p) that one civil suit was restored to file and another suit on the file of this Court was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit; (q) that the notice dated 23.5.2008 was never sent by this defendant through an Advocate by name Mr. Chockalingam; (r) that the notice dated 05.5.2009 was sent by this defendant, but it was a valid notice; (s) that one of the Directors of the plaintiff is also facing prosecution in Karnataka, for various offences; (t) that the previous Power Agent Mr. G.N. Pandian produced wrong writ petition numbers before revenue authorities and misled them; and (u) that in a democracy, freedom of expression cannot be curtailed and that therefore, the application for Injunction should be dismissed. 5. The defendant also filed a supplementary counter affidavit contending inter alia, (a) that the legal representatives of the original owners executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr. 5. The defendant also filed a supplementary counter affidavit contending inter alia, (a) that the legal representatives of the original owners executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr. G.N. Pandian on 30.6.1995, on the basis of which he created various fictitious sale deeds in favour of his own kith and kin; (b) that upon coming to know of the same, the owners cancelled the power by a deed of cancellation dated 29.01.1996; (c) that when a false complaint was lodged against this defendant, he obtained anticipatory bail; (d) that on 02.3.2006, a sale deed was created in favour of Krishna Tiles, in respect of a land of an extent of 9.1 acres; (e) that on 29.5.2007, the original owner Mr. A.S. Muthusamy issued a notice to his agent Mr. G.N. Pandian, alleging misappropriation; (f) that the judgement and compromise decree passed in O.S.No. 3255 of 2008 would show that the defendant was not a land grabber; (g) that this defendant has been agitating his rights in many proceedings; (h) that the police officers, who were instrumental in getting the defendant detained, were themselves trapped and arrested by the vigilance department later; Quoted fictitious writ petition numbers to the revenue authorities and the same was brought to their knowledge by this defendant; (j) that this defendant has also filed W.P. No. 588 of 2011 seeking a direction to the Director of Urban Land Ceiling for taking action; and (k) that this defendant has always been trying to exercise his rights owner the property in question. 6. In response to the counter and supplementary counter affidavits filed by the respondent, the applicant/plaintiff filed a rejoinder contending that they purchased the property for a valuable consideration from persons who were in possession and enjoyment for over 7 decades; that the respondent is attempting to grab the land without any right; that all the allegations about Mr. G.N. Pandian and the land being under acquisition, were false and incorrect; that the respondent has been indulging in reckless circulation of notices to numerous authorities; that the averment that the CMDA issued orders of demolition is wrong; that the averment that the plaintiff availed a loan of Rs. G.N. Pandian and the land being under acquisition, were false and incorrect; that the respondent has been indulging in reckless circulation of notices to numerous authorities; that the averment that the CMDA issued orders of demolition is wrong; that the averment that the plaintiff availed a loan of Rs. 400 crores for the purchase of the property is mischievous; that in view of the order of the Supreme Court, an extent of acres 1.77 has been earmarked and kept fenced; that an extent of acres 6.16 forming part of the suit schedule property was originally owned by A. S. Muthusamy, his brother Anantharaman and their family members; that they appointed G.N. Pandian as Power Agent with full powers of alienation; that he executed various Sale Deeds conveying the entire extent, but thereafter filed C.S.No. 242 of 1996 against his principals; that a compromise was reached therein, on 10.12.2001, by which the sale of the land was ratified; that it was only thereafter, that the respondent created a Power of Attorney and an Agreement in 2002 from A.S. Muthusamy; that therefore, the claim of the defendant is untenable; that a similar claim raised by the respondent in O.S. No. 567 of 2007 as against A.S. Muthusamy failed; that the respondent filed another suit in C.S. No. 116 of 2007, but withdraw the same after an application for rejection of plaint was filed; that the reference to an FIR against one of the Directors of the applicant Company by name Vasudevan is mischievous, since the FIR was already quashed; and that therefore, the claims made in the counter and supplementary counter affidavits are false. 7. From the pleadings of parties and the documents filed on both sides, it is seen that there has been a series of litigation, in respect of the suit schedule property or a part thereof, either at the instance of the defendant or at the instance of others theough whom he claims. The cases are either against the applicant or against their predecessors or against statutory authorities. The details of this cases are as follows:- SI.NO. The cases are either against the applicant or against their predecessors or against statutory authorities. The details of this cases are as follows:- SI.NO. 1 2 Proceeding No. O.S. No. 5836/1998 O.S. No. 3778/2002 Court in which filed Filed by whom Against whom Result XVII Asst.CCC, B. Balakrishnan Plaintiff’s Withdrawn on Chennai @ Parthe Baskar Predecessor-in-title 20.10.2000 II Asst.CCC, B. Balakrishnan Sri Krishna Tiles and Dismissed for Potteries and G.N. default on Chennai @ Parthe Baskar Pandian 23.8.2005 3 4 5 O.S. No. 566/2006 O.S. No. 567/2006 C.S. No. 116/2007 XI CCC, Chennai Defendant II Asst. CCC, Defendant Chennai High Court, Madras Defendant Plaint rejected on Predecessor-in-title 25.7.2008, under Order VII, rule 11 CPC. A.S. Muthusamy Rejected on and 28 others 29.1.2008 Plaintiff, Predecessor-in-titile Withdrawn on and others (various 12.7.2009 authorities) 6 7 8 9 C.S. No. 242/1996 Crl. O.P. No. 10255/2010 Crl. O.P. No. 32080/2005 W.P. No. 32745/2002 High Court, Madras G.N. Pandian High Court, Madras Balakrishnan @ Parthe Baskar High Court, Madras Defendant High Court, Madras N. Adikesavan and 21 others A.S. Muthusamy and 9 others State Disposed of on 27.8.2010 Anticipatory bail State granted on 4 statutory 14.12.2005 Dismissed on authorities and 15.11.2002 Krishna Tiles 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 W.P. No. High Court, Madras Defendant Statutory authorities Disposed of on 34014/2003 27.11.2003 W.P. No. High Court, Madras Defendant State and 3 others 34745/2006 Ten persons Dismissed as C.S. No. 67 of A.S. Muthusamy 2003 High Court, Madras and 5 others including Krishna withdrawn on Tiles 8.11.2006 Crl. A.No. Supreme Court M. Viswanathan Krishna Tiles and Allowed on 1869/2008 another 25.11.2008 W.P. No. High Court, Madras Krishna Tiles State and 2 others 7678/1991 Anticipatory bail Crl. O.P. No. High Court, Madras Defendant State granted on 27978/2 18.11.2002 Decreed as per O.S. No. IV Asst. CCC, Defendant M.S. Viswanathan Compromise 3255/2008 Chennai and 4 others Memo on W.P. No. 2.6.2008 High Court, Madras Defendant Statutory authorities 588/2011 O.S. No. Adikesavan and 3 persons, including 5248/2007 CCC, ChennaiHigh 17 others, rep. by Krishna Tiles and Pending (Transferred and Court P.A. Defendant plaintiff. renumbered as Tr. C.S. No. 760/2008 8. The above statement would disclose that the defendant had initiated at least 5 civil proceedings and 3 writ petitions. by Krishna Tiles and Pending (Transferred and Court P.A. Defendant plaintiff. renumbered as Tr. C.S. No. 760/2008 8. The above statement would disclose that the defendant had initiated at least 5 civil proceedings and 3 writ petitions. In all those proceedings, the defendant has disputed the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and also objected to the right of the plaintiff to develop the property. It is the claim of the defendant that the original exemption order was brought forth by fraud and that the sale of the property through the power agent G.N. Pandian was not valid. According to the defendant, he had obtained a general power of attorney from A.S.Muthusamy and he had also obtained an Agreement for purchasing the property. 9. As between the plaintiff and the defendant, it is clear from the rival contentions that the plaintiff claims title by virtue of the Sale executed by the erstwhile power agent of the original owners. The defendant does not claim title but claims only a right to deal with the property and also to purchase it, by virtue of a Deed of Power of Attorney and an Agreement. In other words, the plaintiff has title deeds in their favour, while the defendant, even according to him, has only a Deed of Power of Attorney and an Agreement. The purchase of the property by the plaintiff, is attacked by the defendant, primarily on the ground that the previous power agent from whom the plaintiff purchased the property, played a fraud and that at the time when the sale took place, the property was under acquisition. 10. Thus, it is clear that the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff to the property, both as the power agent of the original owners and also as an Agreement Holder. But unfortunately, the defendant has not so far chosen (i) either to file a comprehensive suit on behalf of his principals, for setting aside the sale in behalf of his principals, for setting aside the sale in favour of the plaintiff or (ii) to file a suit for specific performance, as against his agreement-vendors. Without taking recourse to either of these two lawful remedies, the defendant appears to be engaged in gorilla warfare against the plaintiff, their predecessors and the previous power agent. Without taking recourse to either of these two lawful remedies, the defendant appears to be engaged in gorilla warfare against the plaintiff, their predecessors and the previous power agent. In this gorilla warfare, the defendant is actually attacking the customers of the plaintiff, the bankers of the plaintiff and the statutory authorities, from whom the plaintiff had or is obliged to, obtain necessary sanctions, approvals etc. This has necessitated the plaintiff to come up with the above suit not only for damages but also for injunction. 11. What the defendant has been indulging in as against the plaintiff, is a slander of title to land. It is one form of tort. There are several forms of tort, to which a reference was made by the Supreme Court in Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India ( 1999 (6) SCC 667 ). A useful reference may be made to para 84 of the said decision which reads as follows:- “Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law defines tort as under: “Tort” Signifies an act which gives rise to a right of action, being a wrongful act or injury consisting in the infringement of a right created otherwise than by a contract. Torts are divisible into three classes, according as they consist in the infringement of a jus in rem, or in the breach of a duty imposed by law on a person towards another person, or in the breach of a duty imposed by law on a person towards the public. The first class includes (a) torts to the body of a person, such as assault, or to his reputation, such as libel, or to his liberty, such as false imprisonment; (b) torts to real property, such as ouster, trespass, nuisance, waste, subtraction, disturbance; (c) torts to personal property, consisting (i) in the unlawful taking or detaining of or damage to corporeal personal property or chattels; or (ii) in the infringement of a patent, trademark, copyright, etc.; (d) slander of title, (e) deprivation of service and consortium”. 12. More than a century ago, the Queen’s Bench pointed out in the celebrated case Ratoliff vs. Evans (1892 (2) QB 524), that “it is an actionable wrong maliciously to make a false statement respecting any person or his property with the result that other persons deceived thereby, are induced to act in a manner which causes loss to him”. 13. More than a century ago, the Queen’s Bench pointed out in the celebrated case Ratoliff vs. Evans (1892 (2) QB 524), that “it is an actionable wrong maliciously to make a false statement respecting any person or his property with the result that other persons deceived thereby, are induced to act in a manner which causes loss to him”. 13. In Salmond on the Law of Torts, it is stated as follows:- “It should be remembered that the Tort of injurious falsehood is one of those in which the remedies of injunction and declaratory judgment may be more appropriate than an action for damages.” 14. To support such an action, it is necessary for the plaintiffs to prove (i) that the statements complained of were untrue (ii) that they were made maliciously, i.e., without just cause or excuse and (iii) that the plaintiffs have suffered special damage thereby. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff in the case on hand has to be tested on the touchstone of these 3 principles. 15. In so far as the first principle is concerned, the statement containing the particulars of cases earlier filed would show that the defendant initiated at least two proceedings and suffered orders of rejection of plaints. One comprehensive suit filed by him against the plaintiff and their predecessors, was withdrawn by him. Out of the 3 writ petitions filed by the defendant, one was disposed of in 2003 itself. There is no logical explanation on the part of the defendant as to why he has not so far chosen to file a comprehensive suit to assert his title or to assert his ‘right to purchase the suit property. Therefore, there is no alternative for me except to come to the prima facie conclusion that his claims about the plaintiffs title to the suit property, are false. Hence, the statements made by him, to the Courts, to the public, to the statutory authorities, to the bankers and customers of the plaintiff are false, as otherwise the defendant could have filed a suit to enforce his title or right. 16. In so far as the second principle is concerned, it is very obvious that the notices issued and the claims made by the defendant are malicious in nature, in the sense that they were made without just cause or excuse. The defendant has been litigating from 2003. 16. In so far as the second principle is concerned, it is very obvious that the notices issued and the claims made by the defendant are malicious in nature, in the sense that they were made without just cause or excuse. The defendant has been litigating from 2003. But he has no explanation to offer as to why he did not file a comprehensive suit. Any comprehensive suit that he chooses to file, would be obviously subject to the law of limitation. If a person who cannot seek to assert his right and title in the form of a proper suit, but who seeks to file all sorts of cases, cannot be said to be acting with just cause or in a bona fide manner. Therefore, the second principle is also satisfied. 17. The fact that the actions of the defendant would make the plaintiff suffer special damage, is too obvious to state. The multi pronged attack launched by the defendant, is against (i) the customers of the plaintiff (ii) the bankers of the plaintiff and (iii) the statutory authorities who have granted approvals and sanctions for the project of the plaintiff. Therefore, the third principle would also stand satisfied. 18. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled to a limited interim order of injunction, restraining the respondent, either by himself or through his counsel or through his agents and servants from communicating with the bankers, customers and statutory authorities, questioning the right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, except after obtaining any order in his favour in any comprehensive suit filed by him, for enforcing or exercising his right, title and interest over the suit property. There will be no order as to costs.