The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which imposes a total ban on Civil Courts from entertaining civil suits in respect of properties being dealt with under the Act.

1. Inasmuch as the issues arising for consideration in both these civil revision petitions are one and the same, a common order is being passed.

2. The Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.No.2541 of 2009, has been filed against the order, dated 30.6.2009, made in I.A.No.1366 of 2009, in O.S.No.603 of 2009, on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The Civil Revision Petition, in C.R.P.No.2542 of 2009, has been filed against the order, dated 30.6.2009, made in I.A.No.1367 of 2009, in O.S.No.603 of 2009, on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

3. The petitioners in the present civil revision petitions are the defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.603 of 2009, pending on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondent herein had filed the suit, in O.S.No.603 of 2009, on the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein, their men, agents and others acting on their behalf, from, in any way, interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, by the plaintiff, except under the due process of law and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and the others from, alienating the suit schedule property.

4. The respondent had also filed two interlocutory applications, in I.A.Nos.1366 and 1367 of 2009, in O.S.No.603 of 2009. I A.No.1366 of 2009 had been filed praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the petitioners in the present civil revision petition, their men, agents and others, acting on their behalf, from alienating the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. I.A.No.1367 of 2009 had been filed praying for an order of interim injunction restraining the petitioners in the present civil revision petition, their men, agents and others, acting on their behalf, from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. By a common order, dated 30.6.2009, the trial Court had allowed the applications filed by the respondent.

5. In the interlocutory applications filed by the respondent, in I.A.Nos.1366 and 1367 of 2009, it had been stated that the respondent is the joint owner of the land and the superstructure, in Plot No.Y-202 (Old No.4518), Anna Nagar, Chennai, in R.S.No.102/ Part 103/part Mullam Village, measuring an extent of 2 grounds and 640 Sq.Ft. It had been further stated that the said property had been purchased by the respondent’s late father Surrender Kumar, jointly, along with three other brothers of his father, namely, Ravi Prakash, Shasi Prakash and Rattan Kumar, from and out of the joint family business income, in the year, 1982, from one R.S.Malia, by a registered sale deed, bearing Document No.160 of 1982, registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Anna Nagar, Chennai.

6. It has also been stated that, from the date of its purchase, the suit property has been in the possession of the respondents father and his family members. After the death of the respondents father, in the year, 1983, the respondents mother and elder brother, Madhusudan, has been in continuous possession of the said property, as the legal heirs of the respondents father, Surrender Kumar. During the life time of the respondents father several businesses were being carried on, along with his three brothers. A number of properties had also been purchased, jointly. However, the possession of the properties were with the defendant’s family members. During the course of the joint family business, several loans and credit facilities had been availed from the Punjab National Bank. Ravi Prakash the father of the petitioners was entrusted with the responsibility of taking care of the litigations. The respondent, his mother and his elder brother and the other family members, who are the legal heirs of Surrender Kumar we