Order of interim mandatory injunction if a judgment and appealable.

AbdulHadi, J: The Second Appeal No.617 of 1993 and L.P.Appeal No.245 of 1993 are connected proceedings and hence they are taken up together. Parties in both the proceedings are one and the same and so, they will be referred so herein as per their respective ranks in O.S.No.2421 of 1988 on the file of 4th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras (herein after referred to as ‘former suit’) out of which the above second appeal arises.

2. Defendant in the said former suit (Kanakarathi-nam) is the appellant in the second appeal, which has been preferred against the reversing judgment and decree, dated 13. 1993 in favour of the plaintiffs ] and 2 therein (respondents herein), passed in A.S.No.254 of 1992 on the file of 5th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The said former suit which was dismissed by the trial court is for declaration of plaintiffs’ title to the suit house bearing Door No.243, Arcot Road, Vadapalani, Madras, pursuant to the registered setlement deed dated 6. 1973 executed by the defendant and her deceased husband Jagannathan Reddiar in favour of the said plaintiffs, (Perumal and Sumathy) for the declaration that the deed of revocation of the abovesaid registered settlement, dated 16. 1983 executed by the defendant is void and for a direction to the defendant to vacate the portion of the suit property in her occupation and deliver vacant possession thereof to the plaintiffs. Theabovesaid Jagannathan Reddiar died on 17. 1980 and their daughters are the 2nd plaintiff Sumathi (P.W.2) and one Hemalatha (P.W.2) and their sons are one Kirubaram and Venkataram (D.W.2).

3. The defendant also filed a suit in O.S.No.10620 of 1992 on the file of 3rd Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras (hereinafter referred as latter suit) that is, about four years after the above referred former suit. The abovesaid L.P.Appeal No.245 of 1993 filed by the abovesaid plaintiff in the former suit arises out of I.A.No.21772 Of 1992 in the said O.S.No.l0620 of 1992, which also relate to the abovesaid house properly. In this latter suit, the said defendant sought for possession of a portion of the said property, for mandatory injunction to remove the obstructions that prevented access to the said house property and for injunction to restrain the abovesaid plaintiffs in the former suit from collecting rents from the said property and for mesne profits. In the said latter suit, the abovesaid I.A. sought for temporary injunction, pending suit, against interference of possession and also for mandatory injunction as prayed for in the suit etc. The said I.A. was allowed by the trial court by order dated 212. 1982 (Thus, this order in the abovesaid I.A. is subsequent to the judgment and decree in the former suit but before the judgment and decree in A.S.No.254 of 1992) The said order has also been confirmed by the order dated 111. 1993 in C.M.A.No.52 of 1993 on the file of this Court. Therefore, aggrieved by the said concurrent order, the plaintiffs in the former suit, has preferred the abovesaid L.P.A.

4. So, it is clear, from what is narrated above, that the dispute in both proceedings in between the mother on the one hand, and her daughter (Sumathy) and the latter’s husband on the other hand, in relation to the abovesaid house in question, and that the dispute is whether the settlement deed Ex.A-1 dated 6. 1973 executed by both mother and father in favour of the said daughter and son-in-law is valid (Though the said father also executed the said deed, as per recital in Ex.A-2 and as per Ex.A-1422. 1951) by which above the defendant purchased the site in question, he was not the owner thereof but the mother alone was the owner. It is also in evidence that she alone put up house building thereon. Though the mother has executed the said settlement deed on 6. 1973 the said document was registered only on 29. 1973. After the death of her husband, she has executed the above referred to deed of revocation of the settlement (Ex.A-26) on