BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and C.M.P.(MD)No.18254 of 2025 T.Balakumar ... Petitioner -vs.-

S.Karuppusamy ...Respondent PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in C.M.A.No.30 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Palani, dated 29.08.2025, reversing the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2023 in O.S.No. 324 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Palani, dated 09.01.2024.

For Petitioner :Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef for Mr.D.Venkatesh For Respondent :Mr.V.Dharanidharan *****

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Palani, in C.M.A.No.30 of

2024, dated 29.08.2025.

2.Heard Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef, learned Counsel representing Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and Mr.V.Dharanidharan, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2.The respondent, as plaintiff, has filed a suit in O.S.No.324 of 2022 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Palani, for partition, declaration and for other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent has filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2023 for temporary injunction restraining the petitioner herein from disturbing the possession. The said application was came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide order, dated 09.01.2024. Challenging the same, the respondent herein filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.30 of 2024 before the Additional District Court, Palani. The learned appellate Judge, vide impugned order, dated had allowed the appeal vide order, dated 29.08.2025, by holding that “considering the actual illegal possession of the co-owner/purchaser of the petition property and in the interest of justice, this Court decides to set aside the order and decreetal order of the trial Court and grant temporary injunction against the respondent that the respondent should not alter the physical nature of the property and create any encumbrance in respect of the property.” Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3.Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a partition suit, the grant of injunction itself will not arise, unless the Court determines the share with respect to the person, who have a right over the property and therefore, the trial Court did not grant the order of injunction and the same was challenged by the respondent by way an appeal. The first appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the co-owner of the purchaser, who has purchased the property, is in illegal possession and by modifying the claim in the injunction application, had directed not to encumber the property or to alter the physical nature, which is per se illegal. The first appellate Court erroneously granted an order of interim injunction without considering the provision under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, which endorse the possession of transferee in the place of transferor as co-owner/co-sharer. It is his further contention that the first appellate Court ought to have seen that it is an admitted fact even by the respondent that the petitioner is in possession of shares sold to him. The first appellate Court without considering the well- considered finding of the trial Court regarding possession of the petitioner, has erroneously reversed the order of the trial Court, which needs interference of this Court and seeks necessary orders from this Court.

4.MrV.Dharanidharan, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has admitted that the revision petitioner is in actual possession of the property and therefore, if any alienation is made or if any alteration is made, that will affect his right. By considering the same, the first appellate Court has rightly granted the relief, which needs no interference of this Court. He