Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 588 (MAD)

Manivelraj v. K. Hazarath Reddy

2013-01-28

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. 1. This application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules r/w Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed for grant of interim injunction, restraining the respondents 1 to 3, their men, agent, servants or anyone claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever pending disposal of the suit. 2. The plaintiffs/applicants have filed suit for declaration, that the plaintiff nos.1 to 4 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, bearing Plot No.12 situated at No.154, Madipakkam Madura, Puzhithivakkam Village, Moolakothalama Line, 19th Thakku comprised in S.No.86/11 measuring 1564 sa.ft. The plaintiffs/applicants have also challenged the Sale Certificates dated 25.06.2002 and 07.06.2007 issued in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 by SRO, Velacherry with consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment. 3. The suit is based on the pleadings, that the plaintiffs are the owners of the possession of the suit property by way of inheritance from late Rajoo Naidu, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs. It is pleaded case of the plaintiffs/applicants, that their late father Rajoo Naidu purchased the plot No.12, situated at No.154, Madipakkam Madura, Puzhithivakkam Village, Moolakothalam Line, 19th Thakku comprised in S.No.86/11 measuring 1564 sq.ft. from Mr.Lakshmana Naicker vide sale deed dated 27.09.1965 registered as Doc.No.2081 of 1965 with the Office of the Sub Registrar, Pallavaram. 4. It is submitted, that the respondents are illegally interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/applicants under Sale Certificates said to have been issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), in which the plaintiffs/applicants were not parties. 5. The plaintiffs/applicants in support this application placed on record a copy of the sale deed executed in favour of late Rajoo Naidu along with other documents, showing that the sale deed was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, to contend, that the plaintiffs/applicants have prima facie case. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants is that they would suffer irreparable loss and injury, if the respondents are not restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/applicants and further that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs/applicants. 7. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/applicants is that they would suffer irreparable loss and injury, if the respondents are not restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/applicants and further that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs/applicants. 7. This application is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2, by pleading therein that the defendants/non applicants are the purchasers in pursuance to the auction by DRT, therefore, non applicants would be the bonafide purchasers, having title to the property acquired from the legal authority, i.e. DRT. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the respondents, that the plaintiffs/applicants are not in possession of suit property and in support thereof, referred to the affidavit filed by the applicants/plaintiffs before the DRT in an application for setting aside the sale, which was entertained by the DRT. It is also contention of learned counsel for the defendants 1 & 2, that the property in dispute was mortgaged by Rajoo Naidu in 1989 in favour of the Bank to secure the loan. It was in exercise of statutory powers vested with the Bank, the property was put to sale, in pursuance of which possession was handed over to the defendants/non applicants, therefore, the plaintiffs/applicants are not entitled to injunction prayed for. 8. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2, that the suit as framed is not competent in this Court, as this Court will have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the suit is for the land situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs/applicants have prima facie case to maintain this application. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2, that the plaintiffs/applicants came to know about the possession about two years back and the present application is filed only after the construction activity was started at the spot. 9. On consideration, I find that the plaintiffs/applicants have been able to make out prima facie case. It is not disputed, that Mr. Lakshmana Naicker was the owner of the suit property. The plot was sold in favour of late Rajoo Naidu, the predecessor in interest of plaintiffs/applicants and Mr. Lakshmana Naicker did not create any charge on the property, as Mr. It is not disputed, that Mr. Lakshmana Naicker was the owner of the suit property. The plot was sold in favour of late Rajoo Naidu, the predecessor in interest of plaintiffs/applicants and Mr. Lakshmana Naicker did not create any charge on the property, as Mr. Lakshmana Naicker has no right left in the Plot No.12, which is in dispute, therefore the proceedings of the DRT are also on the face of it without jurisdiction, as the property of citizen cannot be taken away without due process of law and based on the document, which gave no title 10. As regards the question of jurisdiction is concerned at this state, the suit would be deemed to be maintainable for the reason that this Court had granted leave to maintain the suit in this Court. Though leave granted is under challenge by defendants/non applicants, till date there is leave granted in favour of plaintiffs/applicants. However, at the same time, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2, that defendants 1 & 2 are deemed to be in possession, as would be clear from the affidavit filed before the DRT, admitting that some construction activities are started, therefore, the interest of the plaintiffs/applicants would be protected if further construction is restrained over the suit property. 11. This application is disposed of by ordering the parties to maintain Status Quo with regard to the land during pendency of the suit. 12. No costs.