IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CMP.No.9745 of 2024 B.Sabari Alias Sowrimalairaja ..Petitioner(s)

Vs Sabira Kannam Sahiba ..Respondent(s)

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Judgment and decree dated 18.01.2024 made in CMA No.4 of 2023 by the Learned Subordinate Judge, Ambur, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 11.11.2021 of the District Munsif, Ambur in IA.No.2 of 2021 in OS No.68/2021.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.K.Ashok Kumar For Respondent(s): M/s.K.A.Ravindran

ORDER

The civil revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first appellate court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent challenging the dismissal of the petition for temporary injunction filed by him.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit seeking bare injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the respondent, the original suit property belongs to one Rathna, W/o.J.Kuppusamy. Having purchased the same under registered sale deed on 27-07-1973, she executed a power of attorney deed on 05-11-2012 in favour of one A. Rathnakumar and A.Rajkumar and appointed them as power agents to sell the property. Pursuant to the above said power conferred on them, the said Rathnakumar and Rajkumar jointly sold a portion of the suit property in favour of one M.Amjad by registered sale deed dated 27-08-2014. The remaining portion of the suit property was sold by them in favour of one P.Govindaraj by registered sale deed dated 06-11-2014. The respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit property from the above said Govindaraj and Amjad under registered sale deeds dated 23-06-2017 and 10-08-2017. From that date onwards, the respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is further stated by the respondent that revenue records had been mutated in her favour by order passed by Special Tahsildar. It is also stated that house tax, electricity service connection also standing in her name. Since there was an attempt by the petitioner/defendant to interfere with the possession of the respondent, she was constrained to file a suit for bare injunction. Along with the suit, the respondent filed application seeking temporary injunction and the said application was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal in CMA.No.4 of 2023. The said appeal was allowed by the first appellate court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/defendant has come before this court.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent failed to produce the original documents in her favour and she only produced certified copies and therefore, the first appellate court ought not have granted injunction in her favour. The learned counsel further submitted that the defendant obtained the power deed from the mother of aforesaid Rathna and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property and overlooking the same, the first appellate court granted injunction. The learned counsel further submitted that the first appellate court without recording any findings on prima facie case and balance of convenience, simply passed temporary injunction on assumption and presumption and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, by taking this court to the order passed by the first appellate court, submitted that the first appellate court has discussed the documents filed by the parties and came to the conclusion that the respondent proved her possession over the suit property and therefore, the order passed by the first appellate court need not be interfered with.

5. It is admitted by both the parties that the property originally belongs to one Rathna. The respondent/plaintiff claims right over the property under various registered documen