The grant of an interim injunction is a discretionary relief that requires the court to apply its judicial mind and properly discuss the evidence on record.

ORDER :- The petitioners herein are defendants. The respondent filed O. S. No. 474 of 1972 before the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with his right to leasehold possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on the ground that he is entitled to be protected under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The respondent filed I. A. No. 812 of 1972 for an order of Interim Injunction till the disposal of the suit under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. Code. The petitioners herein filed I. A. No. 1110 of 1972 for vacating the ad interim injunction granted. The District Munsif took up both I. A. Nos. 812 and 1110 of 1972, and disposed of them by his order dated 3-7-1972. He held that there is a prima facie case made out by the respondent herein as lessee and as such he is entitled to protection by way of an interim injunction under Order XXXIX. Rules I and 2, C.P.C. Accordingly, the order of ad interim injunction already granted was made absolute.

2. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Munsif, the petitioners filed C. M. A. No. 88 of 1972 and the District Judge. Coimbatore (East) at Erode, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the District Munsif. Aggrieved by the decision of the Courts below, the petitioners have preferred this civil revision petition.

3. The main contention of the petitioners is that the respondent was acting only as a monakar (manager) and not as a tenant under the petitioners and that the village records and the affidavits of the karnam and the village munsif will show that the respondent was only a manager and not a lessee or tenant under the petitioners. Mr. K. Ramaswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Courts below have misdirected themselves without properly adverting to the evidence on record, that S. F. Nos. 162/1 and 162/2 have nothing to do with S. F. Nos. 153/1 and 153/3, which are the subject-matter of the present revision petition and that the Courts below have not taken into consideration the affidavits of the village munsif and the village karnam and also the proceedings of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tenancy records), Gobichettipalayam.

4. Mr. T.R. Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the question as to whether the respondent is a manager or a tenant can be decided only in the suit, that a prima facie case has been made out in order to enable the respondent to be in possession as a tenant and that such a case found by both the Courts below cannot be interfered with in revision.

5. Various documents have been filed in this case in order to substantiate the respective cases of the parties. The trial Court, without sufficient material, found that -

"irrespective of the conflicting descriptions of the suit properties between the plaintiff and the defendants the fact remains that the suit properties in question are one and the same, over which the parties herein agitate."

This observation cannot be sustained without properly discussing the evidence on record. When the petitioners clearly agitate that the properties concerned are comprised in S. F. Nos. 153/1 and 153/3, there is no point in connecting the lands with those comprised in S. F. Nos. 162/1 and 162/2. The trial Court as a matter of fact, has also found that Exs. A-1 to A-4, which are procurement notices are in the name of the petitioners herein, that Ex. A-5, kist receipt, is in the name of the second petitioner and that the documents filed by the respondent themselves prove that the petitioners are the owners of the suit properties. Nevertheless the trial Court seems to think that the dispute is one as to whether the respondent is a lessee or the manager of the suit lands; and finally it has come to the conclusion that the respondent has made out a prima facie case entitling him to have the benefit of interim injunction in his favour.

6. The trial Court has also misdirected

Click Here to Read the rest of this document