R. SUBBIAH, J.

1. This appeal is filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A. No. 1763 of 2011 in O.S. No. 10044 of 2010 dated 12.4.2011 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, whereby the Court below by allowing the application filed by the first respondent/plaintiff, punish the appellants 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the first respondent/plaintiff as compensation under order 39 Rule 2(a) of Code of Civil Procedure .

2. Brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this appeal are as follows:

The first respondent was the plaintiff and the appellants were defendants 1 and 3 and the respondents 2 and 3 were defendants 2 and 4 before the trial Court. The first respondent herein has filed a suit as against the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 herein for the following relief:

a) To declare that the plaintiff is the sole, lawful and absolute owner of the entire land of the suit schedule property;

b) To grant mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the entire suit schedule property after removing the existing super structure; and

c) A decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them and their men agents etc., from encumbering the suit schedule property in any manner to any third party.

3. It is the case of the first respondent/plaintiff that she had purchased the suit schedule property viz., vacant land bearing New Door No. 20, Old Door No. 39, Rasul Umar Bagadhur Main Street, Halls Garden, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014, in and by two separate sale deeds dated 14.12.1998 and 12.2.1999 from T.A. Ramachandran and others. The said documents were registered as Document Nos. 1229 of 1998 and 123 of 1999 in the Office of Sub Registrar, Triplicane. It is the further case of the first respondent/plaintiff that at the time of negotiation for purchase of the suit property, the first respondent/plaintiff was assured by her vendors as the appellants 1 and 2/defendants 1 and 3 who were temporarily residing in the suit property will immediately vacate the property and they were permitted by the vendors of the first respondent/plaintiff only for dwelling purpose without creating any kind of encumbrance over the property. Since the first respondent/plaintiff had believed the assurance of her vendor she had purchased the suit property by the aforesaid two registered documents. But, after the execution of sale deeds in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff by T.A. Ramachandran and others, the appellants/defendants have not vacated the the property inspite of the demands made by the first respondent/plaintiff as well as by her vendor. On the other hand, the appellants/defendants have started to demand huge amount for vacating and handing over the vacant possession of the suit property to the first respondent/plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the prayer stated above.

4. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff was denied by the appellants/defendants stating that the suit property consists of roof building and it was originally purchased by the defendants great grand father Mr. Ponnusamy Pillai in and by a sale deed dated 22.4.1901 executed by Siloman Khan Sahib son of Late Lathif Khan Sahib. The great grand father Mr. Ponnusamy Pillai and his great grand father late Mariappan son of Ayyaswamy, mortgaged the suit property with roof with one Mariammal wife of Mark Antony by a registered Deed dated 19.4.1909. The defendants‘ grand father Thangavelu and his brother Vadivelu released the said mortgaged property being the suit property on 13.3.1914. The said property with roof house was purchased by these defendants grand father Thangavelu and his younger brother Vadivelu by a registered sale deed dated 13.3.1914 from their elder brother Mr. Ponnuswamy Pillai. Thereafter, their great grand father Thangavelu after obtaining necessary permission from the Corporation of Madra