ORDER : The defendant in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 has filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD).No.1525 of 2014 challenging the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.90 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City 3 Civil Court, Chennai, modifying the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.6098 of 2013 in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 has filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD).No.1989 of 2014 challenging the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.No.91 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, modifying the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.6097 of 2013 in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 3. The plaintiff/Flat Owners' Welfare Association filed the suit in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/ Flat Owners' Welfare Association from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 2400 sq.ft. parking area, after Block 11 & 12 either by constructing building or by any other method except under due process of law and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/ Association from interfering with the plaintiff/Association's use of the common space for parking their vehicles situated at common vacant land of 2400 sq.ft. after Block 11 & 12. 4. The application in I.A.No.6097 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff/ Association for interim injunction restraining the defendant/Association from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by constructing or obstructing or interfering with their peaceful possession in respect of the vacant land measuring 2400 sq.ft., after Block 11 & 12. 5. The application in I.A.No.6098 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff/ Association for interim injunction restraining the defendant/Association from interfering with their use of the common space for parking their vehicles situated at the common vacant land of 2400 sq.ft., after Block 11 & 12. 6. According to the plaintiff, the Association is a registered Association, which was formed by the allottees of the Flats constructed in Block 1 to 6 at Ponnambalam Salai, K.K.Nagar, Chennai. After the Flats were constructed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the same were sold to the individuals. Each Block contains 6 Flats and totally there are 36 Flats in 6 Blocks viz., 1 to 6 on the Northern side. After the Flats were constructed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the same were sold to the individuals. Each Block contains 6 Flats and totally there are 36 Flats in 6 Blocks viz., 1 to 6 on the Northern side. Since there was no space for parking for the Flat owners, the plaintiff Association made a representation 5 to the Housing Board and the Housing Board made space for parking of their two wheelers and four wheelers. According to the plaintiff, the Housing Board allotted vacant land of 2400 sq.ft. after Block 11 & 12. On the South of Blocks 1 to 6, the defendant Association constructed 6 blocks viz., Blocks 7 to 12 each consisting of 6 Flats. According to the plaintiff, for the purpose of parking of vehicles of 12 Flat owners (i.e.) Block Nos.1 to 12, 2400 sq.ft. vacant land after Block 11 & 12 was allotted. 7. Subsequently, one Sri Rama Baktha Jana Samaj Temple authority requested the Housing Board to allot vacant land for the purpose of constructing a Temple and the request made by the Temple was denied by the Housing Board stating that the land is allotted only for the purpose of parking the vehicles of the Flat owners in Block Nos.1 to 12. 8. Subsequently, since all the flats have become old and in a dilapidated condition, the owners wished to demolish the existing Flats and wanted to construct new Flats in the area of Block Nos.1 to 6. Similarly, the owners of Block Nos.7 to 12 also wanted to construct new Flats in their area. The defendant Association started preparing to construct new Flats in their land along with the vacant land measuring 2400 sq.ft. South of Block 11 & 12, which was allotted to all the owners. The plaintiff Association 6 wrote a letter to the defendant Association on 05.09.2011, however, the defendant Association replied stating that the plaintiff Association has got no right over the said vacant land because the land is adjacent to Blocks 11 & 12. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the above revisions. 9. The defendant Association filed their counter disputing the averment stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. 10. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the above revisions. 9. The defendant Association filed their counter disputing the averment stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. 10. According to the defendant Association, the original construction of LIG Flats bearing Nos.S-1 to S-6 took place prior to 1972 by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and the Flats bearing Nos.S-7 to S-12 were constructed during 1975. The Sale Deeds were duly executed and registered in favour of the allottees and the Southern side boundary of Flat Nos.S-11 & S-12 was shown as 30 feet wide road in the Sale Deed dated 08.04.1990 marked as Ex.R2 for the Flat No.S-11B and the Sale Deed dated 12.12.1991 for the Flat No.12A marked as Ex.R1. Further according to the defendant, the Northern side boundary of the Flats erected in Block Nos.S-7 & S-8 are the Flats bearing Nos.S-5 & S-6 respectively and the Western side boundary of the Flat Nos.S-7, S-9 & S-11 are 40 feet wide road viz., Ponnambalam Salai and the Eastern side boundaries for the Flats S-8, S-10 & S-12 is 20 feet wide road and the Southern side of the Flats in Block Nos.S-11 & S-12 is 30 feet 7 wide road. Further according to the defendant Association, there was a separate fencing between the Flats of the plaintiff Association and the defendant Association. The defendant Association has also stated that the plaintiff Association has no right in respect of the land measuring 2400 sq.ft. The plaintiff Association was never in possession of the land measuring 2400 sq.ft. on the Southern side of the Block Nos.S-11 & S-12. 11. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff/petitioner, 10 documents viz., Exs.P1 to P10 were marked and on the side of the defendant/respondent, 7 documents viz., Exs.R1 to R7 were marked. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the case of both parties, allowed both the applications. 12. Aggrieved over the fair and decreetal orders passed by the trial Court, the defendant Association preferred Appeals in C.M.A.Nos.90 & 91 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the Lower Appellate Court modified the fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.Nos.6097 & 6098 of 2013 and partly allowed the Appeals. 13. 12. Aggrieved over the fair and decreetal orders passed by the trial Court, the defendant Association preferred Appeals in C.M.A.Nos.90 & 91 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the Lower Appellate Court modified the fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.Nos.6097 & 6098 of 2013 and partly allowed the Appeals. 13. By its common judgment, the Lower Appellate Court directed both the plaintiff Association as well as the defendant Association not to put up 8 any construction or to continue with further construction between the Block Nos.S-5, S-6 and S-7 & S-8 and on the South of Block Nos.S-11 & S-12 till the disposal of the suit. Further, the Lower Appellate Court directed both the parties not to put up any construction or to continue with the construction in any other vacant land left out for common purpose surrounding Block Nos.S1 to S12 till the disposal of the suit. 14. Aggrieved over the common order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff Association filed a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD). No.1989 of 2014 and the defendant Association preferred a Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(PD).No.1525 of 2014. 15. Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, while re-iterating the stand taken by the defendant Association in their counter filed before the trial Court, also submitted that the plaintiff Association has not established that the suit property is a common property to both the parties made for parking the vehicles of all the 12 Blocks and that the plaintiff Association has not produced the Sale Deed to establish that the property is a common property. Further, the learned senior counsel submitted that in the absence of any proof with regard to the common property, it cannot be construed as a common property and the 9 Lower Appellate Court ought to have set aside the fair and decreetal orders passed in both the applications. 16. In support of her contention, the learned senior counsel relied upon the following judgments: (i) (2013) 3 MLJ 769 [Tamil Nadu Housing Board rep. by its Managing Director, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai Vs. Ms.Mary Rani Immanual and others] wherein a Full Bench of this Court held that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board looses its rights as soon as it executes the Sale Deeds in respect of Flat owners. by its Managing Director, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai Vs. Ms.Mary Rani Immanual and others] wherein a Full Bench of this Court held that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board looses its rights as soon as it executes the Sale Deeds in respect of Flat owners. Further, the Full Bench held that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has no right over the common areas and the Board need not be approached for demolishing the existing Flats and putting up new construction. (ii) (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 33 [Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke and others Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation and another] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: “Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the question arises whether the appellant had shown that there was a prima facie case, triable issue and balance of convenience for granting ad interim injunction pending the suit. It is an admitted position that after the award was made by the Collector, possession was taken. Thereafter, the appellants entered into leave and licence with the Corporation. On expiry thereof, the Corporation had initiated proceedings for ejectment of the appellants and the order of ejectment had become final when the SLP was dismissed by this Court. Thereafter, the appellants had no legal right to remain in possession of the shops. The question then is, whether an injunction could be granted in favour of the persons who remain in possession of the property. After the order of ejectment had become final, their continuance will be only unlawful possession and that therefore a strong prima facie case needs to be made out. Further question is, whether an injunction could be granted against the rightful owner in favour of the persons who remain in unlawful possession. The appellate Court has not gone into the pertinent aspects of the matter. The foundation for action is based on the subsequent reservation of the Corporation. It is settled law that no injunction could be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons in unlawful possession. It is true that the appellants placed reliance in their plaint on resolutions passed by the Municipality on 11-11-1972 and 29-11-1972. A reading of those resolutions would prima facie show that possession would be taken where the acquisition proceedings have become final and land acquisition proceedings would not be pursued where award has not been made as on the date of the resolutions. A reading of those resolutions would prima facie show that possession would be taken where the acquisition proceedings have become final and land acquisition proceedings would not be pursued where award has not been made as on the date of the resolutions. In this case, since the acquisition proceedings have become final, 11 then necessarily possession has to be taken by the Corporation for the public purpose for which the acquisition was made. In that context the question arises whether the appellants can seek reliance on two resolutions. They furnish no prima facie right or title to the appellants to have perpetual injunction restraining the Corporation from taking possession of the building. The orders of eviction were passed by due process of law and had become final. Thereafter no right was created in favour of the appellants to remain in possession. Their possession is unlawful and that therefore, they cannot seek any injunction against the rightful owner for evicting them. There is thus neither balance of convenience nor irreparable injury would be caused to the appellants.” 17.Countering the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner/defendant, Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned senior counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the Lower Appellate Court ought not to have modified the fair and decreetal orders passed by the trial Court for the reason that by virtue of Exs.P3 & P4, the extent of 2400 sq.ft. on the Southern side of Block Nos.S-11 & S-12 was allotted as a common parking area for the residents of Block Nos.1 to 6. Further, the learned senior counsel submitted that the plaintiff had to prove their case before the trial Court and establish that the suit property is a common parking area for all the Flat owners and in these circumstances, the Lower Appellate 12 Court ought not have modified the fair and decreetal orders by restraining both the parties from putting up construction. 18. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned senior counsel on either side, there is no dispute that Block Nos.1 to 6 on the Northern side belongs to the plaintiff Association. Similarly, there is no dispute that the Block Nos.7 to 12 on the Southern side of the Block Nos.1 to 6 belongs to the defendant Association. The suit property lies on the South of Block Nos.11 & 12 adjacent to Ponnambalam Salai. Similarly, there is no dispute that the Block Nos.7 to 12 on the Southern side of the Block Nos.1 to 6 belongs to the defendant Association. The suit property lies on the South of Block Nos.11 & 12 adjacent to Ponnambalam Salai. Admittedly, the plaintiff Association has not produced not even a single Sale Deed to prove that the suit property is a common property of all the Flat owners. On the contrary, the defendant Association produced Exs.R1 & R2 copy of the Sale Deeds dated 12.12.1991 and 08.04.1990 to prove that the boundary on the South of Block S-11 & S12 are shown as Ponnambalam Salai. If the vacant land of 2400 sq.ft., which lies on the South of the Block Nos.S-11 & S-12, is common to all the Flat owners, the Housing Board would have shown this vacant land as the Southern boundary of Block Nos.11 & 12. 19. Since the vacant land was not considered as a separate and independent property, the Southern boundary for the Block Nos.S-11 & S-12 13 has been mentioned as the Ponnambalam Salai and not the vacant land. The defendant Association also contended that the South of Block Nos.S-5 & S-6 are shown as Block Nos.S-7 & S-8. It is also not in dispute that a fence has been put up, running from East to West, in between the Flats belonging to the plaintiff Association and the Flats belonging to the defendant Association. The plaintiff Flats were constructed in the year 1972 and the defendant Flats were constructed in the year 1975. That being the case, when the plaintiff Flats were constructed even three years prior to the completion of the construction of the defendant's Flats, if really the suit property was construed as a common parking space for all the Flat owners, the recital to that effect could have been incorporated in the Sale Deeds of the plaintiff Association. But for the reasons best known to the plaintiff Association, they have not produced not even a single Sale Deed to prove their case. After the execution of the Sale Deeds, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has no right in respect of the properties. 20. But for the reasons best known to the plaintiff Association, they have not produced not even a single Sale Deed to prove their case. After the execution of the Sale Deeds, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has no right in respect of the properties. 20. That apart, simply by giving a letter to the plaintiff stating that the suit property is common to all Flat owners, cannot be legally valid, since the property is an immovable property and its value should be more than Rs.100/-, the right and title in respect of the suit property can be conveyed only under a registered document. Before the Lower Appellate Court, a Court witness was examined as C.W.1. C.W.1 is the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. But the evidence of C.W.1 was not clear with regard to the suit property. That apart, C.W.1 cannot let in evidence contrary to the recitals found in the registered Sale Deeds executed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in favour of the Flat owners. Such an evidence is barred under Sections 92 & 93 of the Indian Evidence Act. 21. In the absence of the Sale Deeds produced by the plaintiff Association to establish that the suit property is a common parking area for all the Flat owners and in the absence of any supportive document produced by the plaintiff Association to establish their case, the Courts below should not have granted an order of interim injunction. The Lower Appellate Court went one step ahead and granted injunction as against the plaintiff also. In the absence of any acceptable evidence produced before the Courts below, the Courts below should have dismissed both the applications. The ratios laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 22. The defendant Association filed an affidavit dated 29.06.2015 before this Court giving an undertaking that any construction put up by them in the suit property (i.e.) 2400 sq.ft. of vacant land is subject to the result of the suit. 23. The plaintiff Association filed their counter to the affidavit filed by the defendant Association. 24. 22. The defendant Association filed an affidavit dated 29.06.2015 before this Court giving an undertaking that any construction put up by them in the suit property (i.e.) 2400 sq.ft. of vacant land is subject to the result of the suit. 23. The plaintiff Association filed their counter to the affidavit filed by the defendant Association. 24. Since the defendant Association has given an undertaking that any construction put up by them is subject to the result of the suit, the undertaking given by them is taken on record and the affidavit dated 29.06.2015 shall form part of the record. 25. In these circumstances, the judgment and decree passed in C.M.A.Nos.90 & 91 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, modifying the fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.Nos.6097 & 6098 of 2013 in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are set aside. The applications in I.A.Nos.6097 & 6098 of 2013 in O.S.No.2206 of 2013 are dismissed. 26. However, it is made clear that as stated by the defendant Association in their affidavit dated 29.06.2015, any construction put up by them in the suit property is subject to the result of the suit. 27. Since the suit is pending from 2013, I direct the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.2206 of 2013, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 28. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.