Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1666 (MAD)

K. Duraisamy v. A. Chinnasamy

2025-03-24

P.T.ASHA

body2025
ORDER : The above civil revision petition was filed seeking the grant of ad interim injunction in IA.No.2 of 2025 in OS.No.5 of 2025 on the file of the District Munsif, Anthiyur. 2. The petitioners had been constrained to approach this Court seeking the relief of injunction since the injunction petition which had been filed by them before the District Munsif, Anthiyur, was not being taken up and the petitioners were suffering on account of the fact that they were not not able to remove sugar cane and banana planted in their lands and subsequently not in a position to adhere to the agreement which they had entered into with M/s.Sakthi Sugars Ltd., 3. To appreciate the above it would be apposite to refer to the facts of the case. The parties are referred to in the same rank as in the suit. 4. The revision petitioners who are the plaintiffs had filed the suit for injunction restraining defendants 1 to 6, their men, agents from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in A schedule property and B schedule cart track and to restore the C schedule common cart track. 5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Azhagi Gounder and Karumalai Gounder who were siblings had entered into partition on 28.03.1980 which was reduced into writing under a registered deed of the same date. Under the partition deed the A schedule property fell to the share of Azhagi Gounder and the B schedule property fell to the share of Karumalai Gounder. The brothers had decided to keep the cart track and well in common. 6. The plaintiffs are the sons of Karumalai Gounder who had been allotted the B schedule property and defendants are legal heirs of the said Azhagi Gounder. The 7 th defendant is the wife of the one Raju, predeceased son of Azhagi Gounder. The 5 th and 6 th defendants are his children. The plaintiffs' case is that the suit A schedule property is a cultivable land and B schedule property is cart track measuring 20 feet width (30 links) that branches out from Ennamangalam – Kovilur road and travels west towards RS.No.315, through the defendants land to a length of 290 feet upto the field in RS.No.318. Thereafter, the cart track turn left proceeds upto 125 feet and reaches the Karuppusamy temple and the plaintiffs' land. 7. Thereafter, the cart track turn left proceeds upto 125 feet and reaches the Karuppusamy temple and the plaintiffs' land. 7. The C schedule property is their cart track measuring 15 feet (20 links) which also commences from Ennamangalam – Kovilur proceeds west on the southern end of the land in RS.No.316 and 318 upto the plaintiff's land. The two cart track find reference in the partition deed dated 28.03.1980. There is a teak tree which is over 25 years old on the northern border of the B schedule property which belongs to plaintiffs. Similarly the defendants' coconut trees are over 25 years. 8. The plaintiffs have cultivated sugar cane and banana in the A schedule property and the produce has to be taken through the cart track. The plaintiffs would submit that they had entered into an agreement with M/s.Sakthi Sugars Ltd., in respect of the sugar cane. On 06.01.2025 when the people from M/s.Sakthi Sugars Ltd., came with lorries to cut the sugar cane, the defendants prevented them from entering through the B schedule property. This attempt was successfully prevented by the plaintiffs. 9. In the month of August 2024 the C schedule property (cart track) was annexed with the defendants' cultivable lands. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit. Along with the suit the plaintiffs had filed IA.No.2 of 2025 for bare injunction. 10. The plaintiffs' contention is that on account of dilatory tactics which has been adopted by the defendants IA.No.2 of 2025, despite the arguments having been concluded and the matter reserved for orders on 05.02.2025 it is yet to see the light of the day. The first method adopted by the defendants to ensure that the orders are not passed in the IA was to file a written statement with a counter claim. The counter claim was rejected and challenging the same CRP.No.518 of 2025 was filed. The CRP was dismissed as withdrawn at the admission stage itself on 13.02.2025. 11. Thereafter, the defendants immediately filed transfer petition before the Principal District Judge, Erode, to transfer the suit OS.NO.5 of 2025 from the file of the District Munsif, Anthiyur, to be tried along with OS.No.42 of 2025, on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani. 12. The CRP was dismissed as withdrawn at the admission stage itself on 13.02.2025. 11. Thereafter, the defendants immediately filed transfer petition before the Principal District Judge, Erode, to transfer the suit OS.NO.5 of 2025 from the file of the District Munsif, Anthiyur, to be tried along with OS.No.42 of 2025, on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani. 12. In these circumstances, the petitioner had approached this Court since the orders of injunction was urgently required as the sugar canes was riped for harvest and the same had to be transported to M/s.Sakthi Sugars Ltd., This Court had therefore granted an ad interim injunction on 12.03.2025. 13. Although this Court granted an order of injunction the respondents prevented the petitioners from using the pathway. Therefore, a complaint was lodged before the Inspector of Police, Anthiyur. Since the Police did not take up the matter, the matter was mentioned before the Court on 19.03.2025 at 10.30 am, and this Court directed the Inspector of Police, Anthiyur, to look into the matter. 14. The petitioners on 23.03.2025 filed an affidavit into Court, wherein the petitioners have stated as follows: “I submit that the Government Advocate represented in this Court on 19.03.2025 had duly instructed the Police and reported to this Court that the Sub Inspector was instructed to protect the interest of these petitioners to use the cart track. Even after the police had not taken any action against the persons who are grossly violating the order of this Court, instead the Sub Inspector had again came to the spot on 20.03.2025, he instead of taking action against the persons who are disobeying the order of this Court had spent more than 3-1/2 hours to pacify the defendants and their family members, having failed in his attempt, he told us (plaintiffs) to get prepared to harvest the sugarcane on 21.03.2025 stating that he will give due protection and see to it that the order of this Court is not thwarted.” 15. Meanwhile the defendants have come forward with a petition to vacate the ad interim injunction granted by this Court on 12.03.2025. 16. The respondents had come forward with the contention that B schedule cart track has been destroyed and encroached by the 1 st plaintiff at the starting point of the cart track from the main road, as a result no vehicle can pass through this pathway. 16. The respondents had come forward with the contention that B schedule cart track has been destroyed and encroached by the 1 st plaintiff at the starting point of the cart track from the main road, as a result no vehicle can pass through this pathway. The defendants would contend that the 1 st plaintiff's house abuts the main road. Therefore, he has conveniently blocked the cart track and rendered the cart track unusable. 17. The defendants would submit that there is necessity to measure pathway. The defendants would submit that they had filed a counter claim which was rejected by the District Munsif on 29.01.2025 against which they had preferred CRP.No.518 of 2025 meanwhile they had also filed OS.42 of 2025, on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani and the CRP therefore become infructuous. 18. Since the subject matter in both the suits are one and the same the respondents had filed a transfer petition in OP.No.24 of 2025 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode. The defendants would come forward with the contention that the 1 st plaintiff's son who was doing business and earning handsome income had blocked cart track. 19. They would submit that the petitioners should be directed to remove the encroachment put up on the subject property. This is the sum and substance of the affidavit filed in support of the vacate stay petition. 20. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records. 21. Both the parties claim under the partition deed dated 28.03.1980 registered as Doc.No.612 of 1980 on the file of the SRO, Andiyur. In the said partition deed, the A schedule property was allotted to the share of Azhagi Gounder whose legal heirs are the defendants and B schedule property was allotted to Karumalai Gounder whose sons are plaintiffs. 22. The two cart tracks have been described as follows: "B Schedule 23. The commissioner's plan and report also confirms the above. In his report, the commissioner has mentioned that at the points EF big stones have been placed. This clearly shows that the obstructions have been made on the subject cart track. The plaintiffs would contend that it is the defendants who have put the same, whereas the defendants would submit that it is the plaintiffs who have put up the obstruction. 24. This clearly shows that the obstructions have been made on the subject cart track. The plaintiffs would contend that it is the defendants who have put the same, whereas the defendants would submit that it is the plaintiffs who have put up the obstruction. 24. Therefore, considering the fact that IA.No.3 of 2025 is yet to be disposed of by the Court below the CRP is allowed. The order of injunction granted on 12.03.2025 shall continue till the final orders are pronounced by the learned District Munsif, Anthiyur in IA.No.3 of 2025. The vacate stay petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.