Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
Ramayal, W/o. Chenniyappa gounder – Appellants
Versus
V.K. Ramasamy, S/o. Komarasamy gounder – Respondents
CRP No. 603 of 2026 and CMP No. 3361 of 2026
Decided On : 23-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Injunctions
Headnote
(B) Temporary Mandatory Injunction - An extraordinary remedy requiring a higher standard than mere prima facie evidence; the existence of an easementary right must be claimed by the plaintiffs in their suit for a valid injunction. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners alleged that a cart track running through their property was obliterated by the respondents who denied its existence, leading to a suit for an injunction. Order for a temporary injunction was granted by the trial court but reversed by the first appellate court.
Findings of Court:
The first appellate court found no evidence of the cart track's existence and that the petitioners had not established their claims adequately.
Issues: Whether the petitioners had established a prima facie case for a mandatory injunction and whether they had a claim of easementary right over the cart track.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioners must demonstrate stronger proof of rights and that the injunction's issuance lacked clarity regarding the cart track's contested status.
Result: Civil revision petition dismissed.
For the Appellants : Mr. N. Manoharan
For the Respondents: Mr. Muthuchharan Sundresh
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of land ownership and access rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the existence and access of the cart track. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. requirements for granting temporary mandatory injunctions. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. dismissal of revision petition with directive on merits. (Para 12) |
ORDER :
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first appellate Court, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents 1 to 3/ defendants and consequently dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.115 of 2022, seeking temporary mandatory injunction to restore the alleged cart track that runs through the suit property.
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the said suit. According to them, the first plaintiff is owner of the land to an extent of 1.18 acres in resurvey No.200/2 in Karattupalayam B Village. The second petitioner is son of the first plaintiff. The 3rd plaintiff owns 2.14 ¼ acres in resurvey No.199/2B, 4A. The 4th plaintiff is the owner of the land with an extent of 50 cents in resurvey No.199/4. The 5th plaintiff is the owner of land to an extent of 5.95 ½ acres in resurvey No.197/4. The 6th plaintiff is the owner of land with an extent of 3 acres in resurvey No.197/4.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that there is a cart tract running through the suit property more fully described in plaint schedule with various survey numbers and the petitioners and other adjacent owners have been using the cart track in the suit property as access to their lands. It is further stated that the cart track has been given a separate sub division number in some places and separate sub division numbers have not been given in some other places. Taking advantage of the same, the respondents made an attempt to obliterate the suit cart track and annex the same with their property. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file a suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from committing trespass into the suit property and to interfere with the petitioners’ right of carrying vehicles and cattle through the said cart track. The suit has been filed by the petitioners on their behalf and also on behalf of general public using the suit cart track.
4. The suit was filed by the petitioners on 28.02.2022 and thereafter, the instant application has been filed by them on 28.09.2022 (as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition) seeking temporary mandatory injunction directing the respondents to restore the suit cart track to its original position. It was the specific case of the petitioners in the said application that pending suit, the respondents obliterated the suit cart track and planted coconut saplings.
5. The said interlocutory application filed by the petitioners seeking temporary mandatory injunction was resisted by the respondents by denying the existence of the suit cart track, as claimed by the petitioners. It was also stated by the respondents that neither the petitioners nor the owners of adjacent lands could have ever used the non existent suit cart track. It was also stated by the respondents that the 2nd respondent is owner of the property situated in resurvey No.204, 202/2, 3 and 4. The 1st respondent is owner of the property situated in resurvey No.202/1. The 3rd respondent is owner of the land situated in resurvey No.188/1, 2 and 199/4C. It was the specific case of the respondents that they had put up wire fence around their patta lands and the suit cart track was never in existence in the patta land of the respondents. It was also stated that there was a competition between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent in purchasing the land situated in resurvey No.188/1, 2 and 199/4C and the 3rd respondent succeeded in purchasing the suit lands and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come up with this vexatious suit.
6. The trial court conducted enquiry in th
