JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of C.P.C., to set aside the order and Decreetal order dated 10.04.2017 made in I.A.No.1057 of 2016 in O.S.No.169 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Court of Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu.

The Fair and Decreetal order dated 10.04.2017 passed in I.A.No.1057 of 2016 is under challenge in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. The 5th defendant is the appellant before this Court. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff, who instituted a suit for Declaration of title and for Permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the 1st defendant filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1057 of 2016 for interim injunction. The trial Court adjudicated the grounds raised by the respective parties in the Interlocutory Application and granted an injunction on the ground of balance of convenience and a prima facie case of title was established by the 1st respondent / plaintiff.

3. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant mainly contended that the very observation made by the trial Court with reference to the prima facie case of title in favour of the 1st respondent itself is erroneous, in view of complicated nature of facts and circumstances and, those facts and circumstances are to be adjudicated elaborately with reference to various documents and evidences. If such an opinion is formed by the trial Court regarding the title of a suit property, then the same would affect the other parties to the suit, while adjudication of issues during the final hearing. The learned Senior counsel is of an opinion that the 1st respondent has encroached the public road as per the approved layout and therefore, the said portion of the encroachment is to be removed for the benefit of the general public. With reference to the other issues, the parties may be given liberty to adjudicate elaborately during the trial. The learned Senior counsel made a submission that the 1st respondent has no title at all. The trial Court, while deciding the Interlocutory Application, gone to the extent of adjudicating the title and form an opinion and granted an injunction and therefore, such observations would affect the rights of the other parties during the final adjudication.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent objected the said contentions by stating that based on certain admitted facts, the 1st respondent had established his title. In view of the fact that the 1st respondent/plaintiff could able to establish his title before the trial Court, the trial Court made a finding that the plaintiff established prima facie case of title and applying the principles of balance of convenience, an injunction was granted. The earlier notice issued by the Chennai Corporation authorities was challenged by the first respondent and the matter went up to the Hon'ble Division Bench and the Hon'ble Division Bench made a finding that the parties have to adjudicate the issues before the competent Civil Court and with that observation, the 1st respondent approached the Civil Court for Declaration of title and for Permanent injunction.

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent is of an opinion that when the documents pertaining to the title of the 1st respondent is unambiguous and the trial Court could able to arrive a conclusion that a prima facie title is made out, then there is no error in granting injunction and further, the 1st respondent is ready to establish the said title during the trial. As far as the allegation of encroachment is concerned, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent is of an opinion that he was not a purchaser from the VGP layout and in fact, he purchased from the original owners, from whom VGP purchased 40 acres alone and formed a layout. As far as the properties belongs to the 1st respondent is concerned, it is not part and parcel of VGP layout and therefore, his right is independent and the same is to be adjudicated before the Civ