The main legal point established is that the rights of legal heirs, particularly daughters, in a property are to be protected, and an interim injunction may be granted to prevent the sale of their share in the property.

M. Chockalingam, J.

This appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court granting ad-interim injunction in favour of the respondents 1 to 4/plaintiffs in a suit filed by them in C.S.No.27 of 2008.

2. The Court heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4.

3. The appeal has arisen under the following circumstances:

(a) The plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the daughters and the defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of one Mr. R. Kaliappan who died intestate on 8. 1991, leaving behind the defendants 1 and 2 and also his wife Sarojini Devi. His wife also died leaving intestate on 20.9.1999. The property of Kaliappan by operation of law was devolved upon the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 and their mother, and thus each of the plaintiffs is entitled to 1/7th share in the properties of Kaliappan. The plaintiffs are also entitled to 1/7th share each in the immovable property namely house, ground and premises in Plot No.875, J-24, New No-J-1, 17th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Madras, more fully described in the Schedule. While so, the Schedule property was furnished as security by the said Sarojini Devi and the defendants 1 and 2 to the appellant/third defendant bank in respect of the loan obtained by M/s. Kalsar Marketing Agency P Limited and M/s. Kalsar Petro Products P Limited. Due to non payment of the dues, a claim was made by the third defendant bank, and an ex-parte decree came to be passed. The entire property was brought for sale, and a notice of attachment was issued by the Recovery Officer on 10. 2004, intimating the attachment of the entire schedule property restraining the transfer till the sums of Rs.1,39,87,220.13 and Rs.2,44,53,439.53 are paid.

(b) The respondents 1 to 3/plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed the third party application in I.A.No.577 of 2004 in DRC No.123 of 2004 and IA No.579 of 2004 in DRC No.124 of 2004 before the Recovery Officer, DRT II, to raise the said attachment order in respect of their 4/7th share in the schedule property belonging to the plaintiffs. On dismissal of the above applications by the Recovery Officer, the plaintiffs preferred M.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2006 respectively. The Presiding Officer, DRT II, affirmed the order of the Recovery Officer holding that the plaintiffs were to establish their right only before the Civil Court. As against the said orders, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 filed MA Nos.208 and 209 of 2007 respectively, on the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. In the meantime, the third defendant bank, the appellant herein, took steps to bring the entire property for auction sale to recover the dues payable by the first and second defendants. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the instant suit seeking division of their 4/7th share in the suit property. While doing so, they preferred the instant application to restrain the third defendant bank to bring the plaintiffs 4/7th share in the suit property for auction sale for the dues payable by the defendants 1 and 2.

(c) The learned Single Judge after giving an opportunity to the defendants to put forth their objections and after hearing the learned Counsel on either side, took the view that it is a fit case where injunction has got to be granted and accordingly granted interim injunction. Hence this appeal.

4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. N.R. Chandran would submit that the respondents 1 to 4 had no subsisting right, title or interest in the suit property during the pendency of the suit for partition against the appellant; that the respondents 5 and 6 and their mother Sarojini Devi had already produced a legal heir ship certificate dated 13. 2007, and availed loan stating that they were the only legal heirs of late Kaliappan; that the said certificate had not been rejected by the Tribunal; that the statement of claim of respondents 1 to 4 was not supported by any material evidence; that the defendants