A party seeking an interim injunction must demonstrate a prima facie case and potential irreparable injury, which the appellant failed to do.

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal and this appeal has been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 04.07.2023 made in I.A.No.447 of 2018 O.S.No.39 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur, dismissing the application filed by the appellant seeking for the relief of interim injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from putting up any further construction in the suit property, pending disposal of the suit.

2. Heard Mr.Ali Hassan Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.Rajasekar, learned counsel for respondents.

3. The appellant filed the suit on the ground that the suit property was alloted to the appellant by way of a oral partition which was subsequently reduced to writing in a Koor Chit dated 16.02.1996. Thereafter, the appellant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The further case of the appellant is that the 1st defendant is his elder brother and the property was purchased initially in the name of the 1st defendant by the father and whereas, the entire sale consideration was paid only by the father. There was no intention to recognise the 1st defendant as the owner of the suit property. The partition took place subsequently and the suit property was also alloted in favour of the appellant.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant issued a legal notice dated 27.06.2012 to the appellant calling upon the appellant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the property. On receipt of this notice, the appellant gave a reply dated 01.07.2012, denying the right and title of the 1st defendant and informing the 1st defendant that there was no obligation on the part of the appellant to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property. Thereafter, an attempt was made to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property and hence, the appellant filed O.S.No.25 of 2018 before the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, seeking for the relief of permanent injunction. Notice was also ordered to the 1st defendant in the injuction application that was filed in the said suit. On 27.01.2018 a group of persons forcibly entered into the property and demolished the entire superstructure. The complaint given by the appellant to the police also did not evoke any response. Therefore, the present suit was filed seeking for the relief of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act.

5. During the pendency of the above suit, the appellant also filed I.A.No.447 of 2018 seeking for the relief of interim injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from putting up any further construction on the ground that the 1st defendant sold the suit property in an hasty manner to the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant was taking steps to put up further construction.

6. Notice was ordered to the defendants and they contested the interim injunction application. The Trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed before the Court, came to a conclusion that the appellant has not made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience was not in his favour. That apart, the trial Court also came to a conclusion that no irreparable loss and hardship will be caused to the appellant if the order of interim injunction is not granted in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the injunction application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit property was given in favour of the appellant by virtue of a partition among the family members and the 1st defendant was alloted a different property in the partition. The 1st defendant had dealt with the property and was attempting to tress pass into the suit property taking advantage of the sale deed dated 26.06.1974 that stands in her favour. The learned counsel submitted that originally the 1st defendant had issued a notice calling upon