The main legal point established in the judgment is the stringent requirements for granting an interim mandatory injunction, including the need for a strong probability of the plaintiff getting the relief prayed for, the prevention of irreparable or serious injury, and the balance of convenience.

M. Venugopal, J.

This Original Side Appeal is filed by the Appellants/Applicants/Defendants as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Application No.1519 of 2006 in C.S.No.985 of 2004 dated 08.06.2007.

2. In an Application No.1519 of 2006 in C.S. No.985 of 2004 filed by the appellants/Applicants/Defendants praying for relief of ad interim mandatory injunction directing the respondent/Plaintiff to vacate possession of the premises viz., Pent House No.9-A, situated at "Ved Nivas" No.52, Taylors Road, Kilpauk Chennai-600 010 and restore the possession of the said House to them, the learned single Judge has passed orders on 08.06.2007 inter alia observing that But the applicants/Defendants were not able to establish that the respondent/Plaintiff has not been in possession of the Pent house before obtaining the order of interim injunction from the Division Bench nor they were able to establish that the respondent/Plaintiff trespassed into the pent house only after the orders of the Division Bench. The higher Standard of proof that is more than a prima facie case required for granting such order is lacking in the present case etc. and has come to the resultant conclusion that considering the relationship of parties also, it cannot be said at this juncture that the respondent/Plaintiff is a trespasser and he has to restore possession to the applicants/Defendants and dismissed the said application.

3. Aggrieved against the said order passed by the learned single Judge in Application No.1519 of 2006 dated 08.06.2007 the appellants/Applicants/Defendants have preferred this Original Side Appeal.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/ Applicants/Defendants, the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the Application No.1519 of 2006, without taking into consideration the available materials in the case and that the learned single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the respondent/Plaintiff took possession of the property only after the order passed in O.S.A. No.90 of 2005 dated 21.04.2005, on the strength of the order and the fact that the respondent/Plaintiff tried to take forceful possession for which a complaint was lodged on 110. 2004 and that the complaint lodged by the Apartments Owners Association on 110. 2004 against the respondent/Plaintiff for trespassing were not taken into consideration by the learned single Judge and only after the Division Bench order, the respondent/Plaintiff has produced Tamilnadu Electricity Board Card showing the service in his name and the payments being made by him and this fact was not taken into account by the learned single judge which has resulted miscarriage of justice and therefore prays for allowing the appeal.

5. The respondent/Plaintiff has originally filed the suit C.S.No.985 of 2004 praying for the relief of partition of the immovable property described in the plaint schedule and for separate possession of his 11014/28284 share and for directing the first appellant/first defendant to render true and correct amount of the income from the said property collected by him and for cost of the suit. Subsequently, as per order passed in Application No.1638 of 2005 dated 05.01.2006, the plaint was amended and a relief that the release deed is illegal, inoperative and unenforceable was included.

6. The appellants/Defendants have taken a plea that the respondent/Plaintiff has released all his rights in the property 52, Taylors Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 by means of release deed dated 01.04.2002 in favour of the appellants/ Defendants and that the appellants/Defendants are in possession of the three pent houses and that the respondent/ Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of partition and separate possession of building corresponding to his share and that the respondent/Plaintiff has signed as a confirming party in some of the sale deeds that he has no rights in the said property (while registering the undivided share of land) and t