Court clarified that a party claiming rights must be heard before granting interim relief that impacts their possession, reinforcing principles of fairness and necessity for prima facie evidence.

ORDER :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

This original side appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge in A.No.6279 of 2024 in C.S.No.147 of 2016 dated 04.12.2024.

2. The appellant is a third party to the suit and he has purchased an extent of one are of land from the 50^th defendant on 16.09.2019 pending suit. It is admitted that the appellant had filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.1542 of 2011 and obtained a decree on 09.04.2012 against his vendor, the 50^th defendant in C.S.No.147 of 2016. Appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.2863 of 2024 against defendants 6 to 9 and 47 in C.S.No.147 of 2016 for bare injunction. By the order impugned, the suit filed by the appellant was stayed. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal is filed.

3. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:

3.1 The suit in C.S.No.147 of 2016 was filed by respondents 5 to 7 herein for the following reliefs:

(i) Directing partition of the suit properties which are morefully described in the Schedule B 2 hereunder between plaintiffs and 1^st to 23 and 40^th to 46^th defendants herein and allocate 1/24 share to the plaintiffs with metes and bounds;

(ii) Appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the properties which are morefully described in the Schedule B 2 hereunder by metes and bounds and put the plaintiffs in possession of their respective share;

(iii) For declaration declaring the preliminary decree obtained in O.S.No.3261 of 1987 dated 21.09.1989 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court Chennai is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs herein;

(iv) For declaration declaring the final decree obtained in I.A.No.19293 of 1996 in O.S.No.3261 of 1987 dated 21.03.2001 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs herein.

(v) For declaration declaring the properties handled by the defendants to an extent of acre 21.38 cents which are morefully described in the Schedule B 3 hereunder to be treated as shares allotted and handled and binding on the 24^th to 39^th defendants;

(vi) For a declaration declaring the Sale Deed in Document No.3535 of 1996 dated 22.05.1996 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sembium, Chennai illegally executed by 46^th defendant and 47^th defendant herein in favour of 58^th defendant herein is null and void not binding on the plaintiffs;

(vii) For a declaration declaring the Partition Deed in Document No.8130 of 2001 dated 18.10.2001 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sembiym, Chennai illegally registered between the S.R.Dharmalingam the father of 36^th to 39^th defendants and 36^th to 39^th defendants herein is null and void not binding on the plaintiffs;

(viii) For a declaration declaring the Sale Deed in Document No.2788 of 2002 dated 22.04.2002 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sembium, Chennai illegally executed by 40^th to 45^th defendants in favour of 58^th defendant is null and void not binding on the plaintiffs;

(ix) For a declaration declaring the Sale Deed in Document No.4635 of 2003 dated 02.07.2003 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sembium, Chennai illegally executed by S.R.Sambantha Murthi Nicker (late), S.Ravi (late) and 30^th to 34^th defendants in favour of 60^th and 61^st defendants is null and void not binding on the plaintiffs;

(x) For a declaration declaring the Compromise Sale Agreement in Document No.2550 of 2004 dated 22.03.2004 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sembium, Chennai illegally executed by S.R.Dharmalingam (late) the father of 35^th to 39^th defendants in favour of 50^th defendant is null and void not binding on the plaintiffs;

(xi) For a declaration declaring the Sale Deed in Document No.2565 of 2004 dated 24.03.2004 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Sembiym, Chen