In a suit for bare injunction, an order of temporary injunction cannot be granted solely on the assertion of a right of residence; the plaintiff is legally required to establish prima facie possession, and in the absence thereof, the court may direct status quo to prevent irreparable injury.

ORDER :

K. Kumaresh Babu, J.

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.A.No.12 of 2021, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Hon’ble XV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.4545 of 2020.

2. Heard Mr.Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.D.Shanmuganathan and Mr.C.Harsharaj, learned counsel, for the petitioner and Mr.N.Jothi, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.B.Balaji, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2; Mr.S.Kamalesh Kannan, learned counsel, for Mr.S.Saisathyajith, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent and Mr.M.Balaji, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the first respondent herein had instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction as against the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4.

4. He would submit that the third respondent is his brother and the fourth respondent is his mother, and the property for which an injunction was sought for belonged to him. He would submit that the said suit had been filed by the first and second respondents, who are the wife and daughter of the third respondent, and hence they are his sister-in-law and niece. He would submit that in the said suit, an ad interim injunction was sought for, which came to be negatived. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent had preferred an appeal, and the Appellate Court, erroneously holding that the first and second respondents are entitled for protection of their shared household interest in the suit property, had granted the injunction mainly on the principles envisaged under the D.V.C Act.

5. He would further submit that the first and third respondents were married and after their marriage, they had been living in the suit schedule property along with the father and mother of the petitioner. As the relationship was not conducive, the father of the petitioner, in an attempt to diffuse the situation, had rented out a premises and the first and third respondents moved to the said premises and were living there. He would submit that even there, the first respondent had been creating nuisance, and that the first respondent had also been further educated by the petitioner’s father and mother and had secured a lucrative job in the Education Department.

6. When that be so, the father of the petitioner, who had been taking care of the rents payable for the said residence, had died, the rents were initially taken care of by the petitioner. However, due to the attitude of the respondents 1 and 3, the owner of the property had directed them to vacate the premises. 7. He would submit that the respondents had vacated the premises and moved out to an unknown place, but had been attempted to trespass into the property of the petitioner, which had been settled in his favour by his father. The said attempts made by the first respondent had led to police complaints on either side, and immediately within a month, the present suit had been filed, claiming that she had been in possession of the property and is being attempted to be removed. He would further submit that after the discord between the family and the first and third respondents have settled outside the house arranged by his father, they had never lived in the suit property so as to claim