Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. MALA, J.
C.B. Manokaran – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Chennai & Others – Respondents
C.M.A.No. 1067 of 2023 & C.M.P.No. 10051 of 2023
Decided On : 07-07-2023
For the Appellant:B. Hari Krishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, A.S. Ragul Adhithya, P.T. Ramadevi, R2 & R3, C. Jayaprakash, Advocates.
Grant of injunction is at the discretion of the Court and should be based on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - CPC - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 - [T.S.No.78, Old Survey No.73/1 part] - [CPC] - [Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2, Section 151]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of a property, claiming to be a legal heir. The appellant sought an injunction to restrain the Corporation of Chennai from constructing a Primary Health Center on the disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the application for injunction, finding that the appellant failed to establish prima facie title or possession of the property, and that the balance of convenience was in favor of the Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found that the appellant failed to provide title documents or evidence of possession, and that the property details in the petition, schedule to the injunction application, and schedule to the plaint were inconsistent. The Court also noted that the relief sought in the suit implied Corporation's possession of the property. The Court held that the Corporation had prima facie right to the property and that granting injunction would cause irreparable loss to the Corporation and the public.
Issues: Prima facie title and possession of the appellant, consistency of property details, balance of convenience, irreparable loss
Ratio Decidendi: Grant of injunction is at the discretion of the Court and should be based on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The appellant failed to establish prima facie title or possession, and the relief sought in the suit implied Corporation's possession. Granting injunction would cause irreparable loss to the Corporation and the public.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the appellant.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, at Ponneri.)
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, at Ponneri.
2. The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff/ petitioner against I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.137 of 2023, whereunder his application for ad interim Injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of CPC was dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case leading to the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are as follows:
The appellant/petitioner as one of the legal heirs of one Chellammal and claiming to have 1/4th share in the suit properties filed the suit for declaration and other reliefs. According to the appellant, the said Chellammal was his paternal grandmother and she purchased the property in Survey number 73/50 measuring 16,000 sq.ft. situated in Ernavur Village under registered sale deed dated 11.04.1966. The said Chellammal sold the aforesaid property to one T.D.Purushothaman vide Sale Deed dated 06.12.1967. The appellant claims that, apart from the aforesaid property, the said Chellammal had other properties.
4. The appellant’s grandmother Chellammal died on 17.03.1983 leaving behind her three sons, one daughter and three grand-children including the appellant herein, as the legal heirs of her pre-deceased son Balasundaram. According to the appellant, on the demise of Chellammal, the legal heirs of Chellammal were entitled to the suit properties and the appellant was entitled to 1/5th share, as one of the the legal heir of pre-deceased son of Chellammal. It is the appellant’s further case that after demise of the vendee of Chellammal his legal heirs sold the property purchased by him in Survey number 73/50 measuring 16,000 sq.ft at Ernavur Village along with the lands comprised in Survey No.73/IP, 73/49, 73/48, Block No.4, Ward B, situated at Ernavur Village vide Sale Deed dated 10.03.2011. The appellant on coming to know of the fraudulent sale of land filed the suit in O.S.No.4 of 2017, on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvottiyur, for declaration that the Sale Deed dated 10.03.2011 was non-est, invalid and not binding on the appellant. In the above suit, on 06.01.2017, a status quo order was passed in I.A.No.21 of 2017, which was filed for interim injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the appellant’s personal possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Later the status quo order was not extended. Pending the suit, the appellant also filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2020 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the said properties and to file a report with the help of a Taluk Surveyor. The said I.A was dismissed on 24.11.2020 against which the appellant filed Civil Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.2321 of 2020 and the same was allowed by this Court on 20.04.2021. Pursuant to the order in the CRP, the Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and filed his report on 20.10.2022.
5. According to the appellant, the Corporation of Chennai illegally constructed Amma Unavagam and Satthunavu Koodam on the said land, and therefore the appellant filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.8369 of 2018 for a Writ of Mandamus for demolishing the illegal construction put up by the Corporation of Greater Chennai. The said writ petition was dismissed on 10.04.2018 as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to workout his remedy in accordance with law, before the Competent Authority.
6. According to the appellant, the officials of the Corporation of Chennai entered into the property on 03.09.2022 and started demolishing the water tank and other structures standing thereon. When the appellant enquired with the officials he
