- (1.) AGGRIEVED over the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu made in CMA.No.12 of 2006, in I.A.No.106 of 2006 in O.S.No.21 of 2006, the second defendant in the suit and the second respondent in the CMA has preferred this revision.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:- THE respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit against (1) M/s. Indus City Scapes Pvt., Ltd. (2) Sarasa Gopal (petitioner) and (3) Srinivasa Rao, for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 to restrain them from interfering with the plaintiff's/respondent's possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. THE contention of the plaintiff was that the suit properties originally belonged to the third defendant by virtue of several sale deeds. THE plaintiff has entered into a development agreement with the third defendant. But when he attempted to develop the properties, the defendants 1 and 2 caused interference and therefore he filed the suit for permanent injunction. He also filed I.A.No.106 of 2006 along with the suit before the Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpattu for ad-interim injunction regarding the three items of the suit properties. After contest, the learned Subordinate Judge granted ad interim injunction as far as first item of the suit property i.e., 1 acre and 96 cents and as regards items 2 and 3 of the suit properties, the learned Judge passed an order that there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title to the properties mentioned as items 1 and 2 and hence both parties should not make any construction activity and status quo to be maintained. Aggrieved over the said order, the first respondent filed CMA.No.12 of 2006 before the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu and the CMA was allowed by the learned District Judge, holding that the plaintiff (first respondent) herein is entitled for injunction for all the three items of the suit properties. Aggrieved over the said order, the CRP is filed by the petitioner/second defendant in the suit. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is as follows:- The suit properties originally belonged to one Ayyasamy Naidu. He had four sons and a daughter by name Balakrishna Naidu, Ramanajulu Naidu, Subbu Naidu Kesavalu Naidu and Chinnammal. On 30.10.1937 one Visalakshi Ammal purchased an extent of 6.84 acres out of 8.20 acres from all the branches of the legal heirs of Ayyasamy Naidu i.e., Balakrishna Naidu, Ramanujulu Naidu, minor son of deceased Subbu Naidu and minor children of deceased Kesavalu Naidu and Chinnammal, daughter of the said Ayyasamy Naidu. The properties said to have been sold for the then market rate. On 25.5.2004 after the death of the said Visalakshmi Ammal, her daughters 1) Saradha (2) Nagarathnam (3) Janaki (4) Ammani and (5) Parvathi have executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant, petitioner herein and put him in possession of the suit properties. According to Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the title of Ayyasamy Naidu to the suit properties was accepted by both sides. The third defendant and his father Sriramulu Naidu entered into an deed of agreement of sale with Mrs.Pottiammal and others in regard to 8.20 acres at the rate of Rs.500/= per cent who represented the four Branches of Ayyasamy Naidu (original owner's sons namely Balakrishna Naidu, Ramanajulu Naidu, Subbu Naidu and Kesavalu Naidu). But subsequently, different sale deeds have been executed in the year 2000 and 2004 by the legal heirs of the said four Branches of Ayyasamy Naidu. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner, the petitioner's principals have got antecedent title. In the case of vacant land, possession follows title and even in the sale deed dated 30.10.1937, it is stated that possession was given to the vendee. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners would further contend that there is already a fencing around the suit properties and on 23.1.2006 an attempt was made by the plaintiff and his men to trespass and a complaint was filed before the Kelampakkam Police. To prove that there is a fencing around the suit properties, the learned counsel has relied on certain photographs marked as R.7 series before the trial court.
(3.) PER contra, Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff would contend that there is no dispute with regard to the item No.1 of the suit properties. As regards item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit properties the possession is with the first respondent/plaintiff and for proving the said possession he has produced documents like Ex.P.11, Patta dated 19.11.2004, Ex.P.13, Patta dated 12.4.2005, Ex.P.14, dated 20.11.2004, Chitta for Fasli 1414 in the name of the third defendant, Ex.P.15, dated 20.11.2004, Adangal for Fasli 1414 in the name of the third defendant, Ex.P.17, dated 21.4.2005, chitta for Fasli 1414, Ex.P.18, dated 21.4.2005, Adangal for Fasli 1414, Ex.P.19, dated 24.8.2005, Urban Land Tax receipt for Fasli 1415, paid by the third defendant, Ex.P.2a, dated 11.3.2005, result of chemical analysis of water obtained from Navalur and Ex.P.28, dated 30.9.2005 Bills for payment to security commandos for the months of September to December 2005. The learned senior counsel for the first respondent would contend that the learned Principal District Judge has found that the first respondent is in possession and therefore he must be permitted to construct the compound wall and also dig a bore-well and allowed to do the earth drilling work pending disposal of the suit. Mr.B.Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/second defendant has also made the same demand to do the above works. The point for consideration is whether the order of the learned Principal District Judge is sustainable and whether any of the parties would be permitted to do the developmental works in the suit properties? ;