The grant of injunction is a discretionary relief, subject to the satisfaction of a serious disputed question, probability of entitlement to relief, necessity to protect from injury, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.

P.K. Misra, J.

1. These three appeals are directed against the common order dated 20.9.2005, passed by the learned single Judge in O.A. No. 568 of 2005, Appln. Nos.2341, 2775 and 3947 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 479 of 2005.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:

The suit bearing C.S. No. 479 of 2005 has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents against the present appellants/defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and enjoyment of ‘A’ Schedule property, except by due process of law, and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver the original title deeds and documents as indicated in ‘B’ schedule. Schedule ‘A’ consist of land and building. There is no dispute that such land and house belong to the plaintiffs. On 15.12.1999, there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants for sale of the property bearing Door No.91, Poes Garden, Chennai. A sum of Rs.70 lakhs had been paid by the defendants and a further sum of Rs.70 lakhs was paid towards fixtures and furniture. The title deeds relating to the disputed house were deposited with an Advocate Mr. N.S. Varadachari. According to the plaintiffs, even though other formalities such as clearance from the Incom e Tax Department, permission from the High Court regarding sale of minor’s share had been obtained, the defendants did not evince any interest in completion of the transaction. In the meantime, the plaintiffs 2 & 3 had been adjudicated as Insolvents, which has been subsequently revoked. While the matter stood thus, according to the plaintiffs, the defendants forcibly trespassed upon a portion of the property on 13.1.2005 and no action was taken by the police in spite of the complaint given by the plaintiffs. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the suit was filed for the reliefs already indicated. During pendency of such suit, the plaintiffs filed O.A. No. 568 of 2005 for interim injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit ‘A’ Schedule property and an ex parte order of injunction was granted on 18.5.2005. Appln. No. 2341 of 2005 had been filed by the defendants for vacating the above order of interim injunction. Appln.No.2775 of 2005 had been filed by the plaintiffs seeking for interim mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the original title deeds/documents indicated in the suit ‘B’ Schedule to the custody of Mr. N.S. Varadhachari. Appln. No. 3947 of 2005 had been filed by the defendants for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect ‘A’ schedule property and to submit report regarding actual possession of the said property. Pursuant to a direction issued in the said Application, the Advocate Commissioner submitted a report on 2.9.2005.

3. The learned single Judge under the impugned orders has allowed O.A. No. 568 of 2005 and made the interim injunction dated 18.5.2005 absolute, with a further direction to the defendants to handover possession of the first floor of the suit ‘A’ schedule property and rejected Appln. No. 2341 of 2005, which had been filed by the defendants for vacating the interim injunction. The learned single Judge has also allowed Appln. No. 2775 of 2005 directing the defendants to deposit ‘B’ schedule documents with the Deputy Registrar (Original Side) for safe custody in the Court till disposal of the suit. Appln. No. 3947 of 2005 has been closed with a direction to the applicants therein to pay a further sum of Rs.5,000 towards final remuneration of the Advocate Commissioner.

4. O.S.A. Nos. 248 of 2005 is directed against the order making the interim injunction absolute. O.S.A. No. 250 of 2005 is directed against the order rejecting Appln. No. 2341 of 2005 which had been filed by the defendants to vacate the interim injunction. In other words, O.S.A. Nos. 248 and 250 of 2005 relate to the order of injunction. O