ORDER: This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 3.6.2004 granting ex parte injunction in I.A.No.998 of 2004 in O.S.No.637 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Chengalpattu.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The revision petitioners are defendants 4 to 6 in O.S.No.637 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Chengalpattu. The suit has been filed by the Santhathis of M/s.Adilakshmi Ammal Hereditary Trust established in the year 1890. Adilakshmi Ammal wife of Rathinam Mudaliar created the Adilakshmi Ammal Dharma Sathiram under a registered Will dated 2.10.1900. As per the said Will, she appointed her only son W.B.Devaraja Mudaliar as the Trustee and thereafter the “Santhathis” were to be the hereditary trustees. The said Devaraja Mudaliar had a daughter, V.G.Padmavathi Ammal who was married to one Gajaraj Mudaliar. Padmanavathi Ammal predeceased her father Devaraja Mudaliar on 17.7.1943. Through Padmavathi Ammal, Gajaraj Mudaliar had a daughter, Kamalabai Ammal and son V.G.Srinivasan. Kamalabai Ammal was married to one Parthasarathy. Kamalabai Ammal and Parthasarathy had four children namely, P.Srinivasan, P.Saraswathi, P.Shyamaldharan and P.Vijayalakshmi, who are the plaintiffs in the suit. Gajaraj Mudaliar had married one Dhanalakshmi as second wife. Through Dhanalakshmi, Gajaraj Mudaliar had begotten V.G.Bhoopathy and V.G.Ramaswamy, defendants 1 and 2 apart from three daughters. The said defendants 1 and 2 have created sale deeds in the names of S.Devi, M.Mangalam, Uma Maheswari, defendants 3 to 6 in respect of the properties belonging to the Adilakshmi Ammal Dharma, Sathiram. The alienees, particularly revision petitioners/defendants 4 to 6, illegally demolished a tiled house and also put up construction. To prevent the alienees from putting up further constructions, the ‘Santhathis’ of Kamalabai Ammal and Parthasarathy filed the suit in O.S.No.637 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu which was later renumbered as O.S.No.81 of 2004. The suit was filed claiming the reliefs in respect of three (Schedule mentioned properties viz., (i) to deliver vacant possession of B and C Schedule properties, (ii) for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 4 to 6 from in any way putting up construction in respect of a portion in “C” Schedule property, and (iii) for future damages of use and occupation at Rs.1,000 per month in respect of B Schedule property.

3. In the said suit the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1295 of 2004 under O.39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for ad interim injunction and the trial Court granted an order of ad interim injunction on 3.6.2004. Aggrieved against the said order, this civil revision petition has been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The main grounds raised in the revision are: (ii) No sanction was obtained as required under Sec.92 of C.P.C., for instituting the suit, (ii) O.39, Rule 3-A has not been complied with: (iii) Order of this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.5873 to 5875 of 2004 are against the grant of interim injunction, and (iv) The order of the lower Court is hit by the principles of res judicata.

5. The contention of the respondents/plaintiffs who resist this revision are: (i) As required under Sec.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, separate application was filed for sanction and permission was obtained and the suit has been lawfully instituted; (ii) Even assuming here is non compliance of O.39, Rule 3-A, CPC, the remedy for the petitioners is to file an appeal, (iii) the order in Tr.C.M.P.Nos.5875 of 2004 is not an impediment for the Court to grant an order of ad interim injunction in the present suit since the High Court has only made an observation that constructions put up by the petitioners/ alienees will be subject to the result of the suits filed by the transfer petitioners therein; (iv) The question of res judicata does not arise since the suit filed by the power of attorney

Click Here to Read the rest of this document