The court ruled that interim injunction was not warranted as the classification of property and bank's actions must be settled in the main suit.

ORDER :

P. DHANABAL, J.

This application has been filed by the applicants to grant an Interim Injunction restraining the respondents in any way from interfering with the applicants / plaintiffs’ right, title, interest, possession and enjoyment of the suit property, pending disposal of the suit.

2. The brief case of the applicants / plaintiffs are as follows:-

(i) The applicants are the plaintiffs in the main suit, which was filed for relief of declaration and for permanent injunction. The applicants are the owners of the agricultural lands mentioned in the petition, in the year 2007, with an intention of generating additional revenue for the family, they decided to construct agricultural godowns on their agricultural lands to store agricultural produces. Therefore, the applicants approached the 1^st respondent / Bank for loan and also they obtained loan to the tune of Rs.7.35 Crores. For that, the applicants executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds in favour of the bank. At the time of sanctioning the loan, the 1^st respondent / Bank has deducted a sum of Rs.2,22,98,265/-, as interest to the said loan and only credited a sum of Rs.5,12,01,735/-. The scheme Grameen Bhandran Yojana was formulated with the object to create scientific storage capacity with allied facilities in rural areas to meet the requirements of farmers for storing farm produce. As per the said scheme, the individuals can take up project for construction of rural godowns and subsidy is also linked to the institutional credit. The applicants were assured that they would be sanctioned with subsidy and was asked to pay their share for the construction of the godown.

(ii) Further, under the Nabard Rural Godown Scheme, the plaintiffs are legally entitled to a government subsidy aimed at promoting capital investment and enhancing income generation in the agriculture. The Nabard, in accordance with the scheme provisions released subsidy of Rs.18,68,500/-towards the loan of the 1^st applicant’s account and Rs.20,91,500/- towards 2^nd applicant’s loan account on 27.02.2008, in total a sum of Rs.39,60,000/-. While so, the bank officials by playing fraud and committing criminal breach of trust, fraudulently returned the entire advance subsidy of Rs.39,60,000/- to Nabard on 11.11.2009 without the applicants / plaintiffs’ knowledge. The applicants also applied for plan approval to the panchayat and the same was also granted on 25.09.2008. The respondent / bank officials unreasonably and maliciously rejected the applicants / plaintiffs legitimate request for loan re-schedulement. The agricultural land was exempted under the SARFAESI Act, only to grab the suit property, the bank, repeatedly issued notices for the agricultural properties. When the applicants were making sincere efforts to resolve the matter, the bank officials proceeded illegally to auction the agricultural properties in complete violation of law. The properties worth about 80 crores and there is no legally enforceable debt after dismissal of their own case before Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Bank officials also created auction transactions and forged sale documents to defeat the applicants/ plaintiffs ownership legitimate rights. Now, taking advantage of the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the respondents are trying to take possession of the subject property, through Police Officials. Since there is a threat of illegal dispossession of the applicants / plaintiffs, having no other alternative, filed the suit and a bar under Section 34 under the SARFAESI Act is not applicable to this case. The applicants made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience also lies in favour of