JUDGMENT A. Arumughaswamy, J., 1. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 2. The appellants in the writ appeal are respondents 6 to 9 and 11 in the writ petition. The first respondent in the writ appeal is the petitioner and respondents 2 to 8 in the writ appeal are respondents 1 to 5, 10 and 12 in the writ petition. The petitioner/first respondent herein filed the writ petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 4/respondents 2 to 5 herein to initiate appropriate action on respondents 5 to 11/respondents 6 to 8 and appellants 1 to 5 herein on the complaint of the first respondent herein, to respondents 2 to 5 herein, dated 09.04.2013 and consequently, give police protection to the first respondent herein and factory workers working under him at Chemical Construction Company Private Limited, No.956/57, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019. 3. Pending the said writ petition, M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.P.No.11010 of 2013 was filed by the first respondent herein praying to pass an order of interim direction, directing respondents 2 to 5 herein to give police protection to the first respondent herein and to the factory workers situated at Chemical Construction Company Private Limited, No.956/57, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019. 4. M.P.No.2 of 2013 in W.P.No.11010 of 2013 was also filed by the first respondent herein praying for an order of interim injunction restraining respondents 6 to 8 and appellants 1 to 5 herein, their men and their agents, from in any way, interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the first respondent herein. 5. When the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge, the learned Single Judge has granted the reliefs, as prayed for, by the first respondent herein, in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in the said writ petition, vide orders, dated 29.04.2013. Aggrieved over the same, the appellants herein, who are respondents 6 to 9 and 11 in the writ petition, have filed the present writ appeals, praying to set-aside the order, dated 29.04.2013, passed in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 in W.P.No.11010 of 2013. Pending the said writ appeal, M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.A.No.1098 of 2013 came to be filed by the appellants herein, praying to stay the operation of the order, dated 29.04.2013 passed in M.P.No.2 of 2013 in W.P.No.11010 of 2013. 6. Pending the said writ appeal, M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.A.No.1098 of 2013 came to be filed by the appellants herein, praying to stay the operation of the order, dated 29.04.2013 passed in M.P.No.2 of 2013 in W.P.No.11010 of 2013. 6. The brief facts, in nut-shell, which are necessary for disposal of the above writ appeals, are as follows:- The first respondent herein, O.V.Nambiar, is the Managing Director of Chemical Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.; the company is engaged in manufacturing of fabricated equipment for oil refinery, solvent extraction, etc.; the company is a private limited company and there are 120 workers working in the factory situated at the aforestated address, in a land measuring 6.59 acres, which was a vacant land with a small factory shed and was owned by one Rathaunnisa Bi; originally, the father of the first respondent herein, Thiru T.V.P.Nambiar had entered into a registered lease agreement with the said land owner on 28.04.1962 for a initial lease period of 50 years with an option and right by the lessee to extend the same for a further period of 49 years; in the said agreement, the landlord had permitted the father of the first respondent herein to put up construction for the purpose of setting up a factory; accordingly, the first respondent-company has constructed about 15000 sq.ft., shed with asbestos roof and 700 sq.ft., of RCC roof for office purpose and the first respondent was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property; subsequently, the said Rehthunnisa bi has passed away and the property was inherited by her son, Guntur Abdul Sukur; the appellants herein, by different sale deeds, purchased the total extent of land and the appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the same; the first respondent herein, claiming to have leasehold rights, on the basis of the lease deed said to have been executed in the year 1962 and alleged to have exercised the option of renewal in 2012, had filed the said writ petition, seeking the aforestated relief; pending the said writ petition, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 were filed for interim direction and interim injunction; this Court, by order, dated 29.04.2013, has ordered the said MPs as prayed for; as against which, respondents 6 to 9 and 11 (appellants herein) have filed the present appeals, and at the time of hearing on 09.05.2013, as an interim measure, the following order has been passed in the said MPs:- “Both parties are entitled to be in possession as per the measurement mentioned in para 4 of the affidavit filed by the respondent in Page No.154 of the typed set. 15,000 sq.ft., shed with asbestos and 700 sq.ft., of RCC constructed by respondents 1 to 5.” 7. Thereafter, the writ petition, writ appeals and the connected MPs were clubbed together and the matter has been placed before this Court and under this backdrop, these writ appeals have been taken up today. 8. At this juncture, it is necessary to point out that the relief sought for by the first respondent herein has two folds, viz., (i) directing respondents 2 to 5 herein to give police protection to the first respondent herein and to the factory workers situated at No.956/57, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Chennai – 600 019 and (ii) to restrain respondents 6 to 8 and appellants 1 to 5 herein, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the first respondent's company. 9. As far as the first part of the prayer, i.e., providing police protection to the first respondent herein and the factory workers is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants has stated no objection for granting said relief. Though the learned counsel for the appellants has stated no objection for granting police protection to the first respondent herein and the factory workers, there is no physical possession to show that the first respondent herein was carrying on business activities. That is the reason why, the learned counsel for the appellants would say that they have no objection to grant police protection. Any how, this Court cannot pass any order, granting police protection for individual persons to run their business. However, the first respondent has failed to establish the case before this Court as to how much extent, the first respondent herein is in possession and the topographical of the area in question. At least, the first respondent herein could have filed some proof from the factories department or some other relevant records to show that they had been in possession of the property to an extent of 15000 sq.ft., shed with asbestos roof and 700 sq.ft., of RCC roof, from 28.04.1964. But the first respondent herein had failed to do so. Since the appellants have not stated any objection in respect of the possession of the land in question by the first respondent herein, this Court is recording this fact regarding the possession of the land in question by the first respondent. 10. But the first respondent herein had failed to do so. Since the appellants have not stated any objection in respect of the possession of the land in question by the first respondent herein, this Court is recording this fact regarding the possession of the land in question by the first respondent. 10. Since we have recorded the possession in favour of the first respondent, there is no need for passing further orders in this regard. However, the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants will not disturb the workers, who are working in the factory premises of the first respondent herein, is recorded. If there is any breach in the undertaking given by the appellants, it is for the first respondent herein to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief. 11. As far as the second part of the prayer is concerned, the reasoning will be as follows:- On a perusal of the documents in the typed set of papers, it is seen that the original owner Rathunnisa Bi died in the year 1979 and the property was inherited by her son, Gundu Abdul Shukoor and other legal heirs. The said Gundu Abdul Shukoor had mortgaged the property and had decided to sell the whole property. Accordingly, he had entered into a tripartite agreement, dated 13.09.2006, with the proposed purchasers, Mr.Rajesh Kumar and O.V.Nambiar/R-8 and R-1 herein. Since Gundu Abdul Shukoor did not come forward to execute the sale deed, as per the sale agreement, the eighth respondent herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.12 of 2010 for specific performance before the District Court, Thiruvallur, and the said suit is pending trial. Due to the fact that there are several persons claiming ownership of the land in question, the first respondent herein did not pay the rents, which were payable from December 2010 onwards and therefore, the first appellant herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.75 of 2013, under Order VII Rule 1 CPC, before the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur, and the same is still pending. 12. 12. From the above stated facts, it is clear that the eighth respondent herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.12 of 2010 for specific performance before the District Court, Thiruvallur, and the first respondent herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.75 of 2013, under Order VII Rule 1 CPC, before the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur and both the suits are pending before the respective courts. 13. At this stage, since there are several persons claiming ownership of the land in question we are of the view that as far as the extent of possession, we could not let our fingers to decide the issue that, in which property or in which portion, the parties are residing. In such circumstances, we cannot pass any order for police protection, which will lead to conflicting issues. But at the same time, the parties in their respective possession can be continued, without disturbing each other and without creating any law and order problems. Therefore, that right is left open to the parties and they can agitate the same before the District Court, Thiruvallur, in O.S.No.12 of 2010 and the District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur in O.S.No.75 of 2013. Therefore, we are of the view that unless specific share as well as possession had been determined between the parties, this Court is not in a position to issue any direction to any of the authorities, except directing the trial courts to expedite the trial of the suits. 14. It appears that the first respondent herein also claims title over the suit property. In such circumstances, it is for the eighth respondent to implead the first respondent herein as a party defendant in O.S.No.12 of 2010 which was filed for specific performance before the District Court, Thiruvallur and on that basis, the trial court can dispose of the said suit. 15. It is needless to say that the earlier order, dated 09.05.2013 passed in M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2013 in W.A.SR No.43625 and 43630 of 2013 has no force. It is also needless to say that in view of the findings given in the present writ appeal, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition. 15. It is needless to say that the earlier order, dated 09.05.2013 passed in M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2013 in W.A.SR No.43625 and 43630 of 2013 has no force. It is also needless to say that in view of the findings given in the present writ appeal, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition. The learned Principal Judge, Thiruvallur, and the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur, shall decide the suits, after affording full, fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties on either side, and decide the matters, on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in this judgment. 16. With the above directions, Writ Appeal No.1098 of 2013 and W.P.No.11010 of 2013 stand disposed of. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2013, M.P.SR No.68543 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2013 shall stand closed. No costs.