Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
M/s. Kaveri Cinema Kovai Private Limited - Petitioners
Versus
M/s. Karpagam Theatres Private Limited - Respondents
C.M.A.No.3188 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.19586 & 19587 & 21945 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.15309 of 2018
Decided On : 03-01-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel for Mr. A. Thiyagarajan.
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Valliappan.
Equitable principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury are crucial in deciding whether to grant an injunction.
Headnote:
improvements - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure - [Section 151] - [Prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury] - The court allowed the respondent to carry out improvements without affecting the rights of the appellant and on the condition that it would not claim an amount towards improvements.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for division of common areas and facilities in a theatre complex. The appellant sought an injunction to restrain the respondent from altering the common areas. The court found that the renovation work permitted by the appellant was completed and that the appellant cannot question the renovation or modification inside the theatre.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was not in its favor. It also found that the appellant would not suffer irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership and division of common areas and facilities in a theatre complex, as well as the appellant's attempt to restrain the respondent from carrying out improvements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the equitable principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in deciding whether to grant the injunction. It also emphasized the importance of allowing improvements for the successful running of a cinema theatre.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the petition to carry out improvements was allowed, with the direction to dispose of the main suit within six months.
1. The relief sought for in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to set aside the order made in I.A.No.415 of 2017 in O.S.No.169 of 2015, on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The relief sought for in the Petition in C.M.P.No. 15309 of 2018 is to permit the respondent carry out improvements and alterations in the suit property.
3. I heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
4. The defendant in the suit is the appellant herein. The respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.169 of 2015, for the following reliefs:
(a) Directing division of the common areas and facilities in the theatre complex called ‘Karpagam Complex’ more fully set out and described in the schedule hereunder in the ration 60”40, preferably in the manner as set out in the plans appended hereto, and allot and deliver the 60% share in the same to and in favour of the plaintiff.
(b) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.90,694/- towards arrears of property tax payable towards their 40% share for the theatre Karpagam and common areas and facilities in the theatre complex along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till date of payment.
(c) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.16,53,583/- towards arrears in payment of electricity charges bill towards usage for the theatre Kaveri, along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till date of payment.
(d) directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,77,733/- (defendant’s 40% share) towards reimbursement of amount spent on upgradation of common areas and facilities in the theatre complex, along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till date of payment.
5. In the above said suit, the appellant filed the petition in I.A.No.415 of 2017 for interim injunction to restrain the respondent from altering or modifying the common areas such as two wheeler and car parking, corridor, lobby, balcony, common toilet, canteen, etc. After contest, the said application was ultimately dismissed on 21.08.2017. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came to be filed.
6. The respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.169 of 2015 claiming that the suit property is a Cinema Theatre Complex called Karpagam Complex situate in land measuring a total extent of 43,240 sq.ft. According to the respondent, the said land was purchased under two Sale Deeds dated 28.02.1979 and 29.04.1979 and that Karpagam Theatre Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in the year 1979 consisting of S. Subbiah Chettiar, his wife S.P. Meenakshi Achi, two sons S.P. Palaniappan and S.P. Shanmugam and their respective wives. It is stated that the Theatre Complex was constructed in the year 1982 consisting of three Theatres Ganga, Yamuna and Kaveri. Ganga and Yamuna in the ground, first and second floors and Kaveri in the third floor. Subsequently, S.Subbiah Chettiar is said to have made arrangements for an amicable settlement between his sons S.P.Palaniappan and S.P.Shanmugam, so as to avoid disputes after his lifetime. Ganga and Yamuna Theatre along with 60% undivided share in the land as well as common areas and facilities were allotted to younger son S.P.Shanmugam and Kaveri Theatre along with 40% undivided share in the land as well as common areas were allotted to share of S.P.Palaniappan. The above said arrangement was reduced into writing under a deed of family arrangement dated 26.02.2005, later confirmed by decree dated 15.03.2006 passed by the learned District Munsif Court at Coimbatore in O.S.No.2074 of 2005. After implementation for the said arrangement, the respondent had taken over S.P.Palaniappan branch and is running the theatres. It is the further case of the respondent that the tax assessment stands in the name of the respondent and appellant and regard
