RANJANI MENON Vs. GOPI ALIAS GOPALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O.S. No. 4785 of 1995 on the file of the 6th Additional City Civil Judge, Madras has preferred these Civil Revision Petitions against the reversing common order dated 27.11.1995 in C.M.A. Nos. 168 of 1995 and 169 of 1995 respectively. THE said C.M.A.s filed by the plaintiff-respondent are against the common order dated 2.11.1995 in I.A. Nos. 9418 of 1995 and 11736 of 1995 respectively. In I.A. 9418 of 1995, the plaintiff sought for temporary injunction pending the said suit and ex parte injunction was granted on 12.7.1995 and in order to vacate the said ex parte injunction the abovesaid I.A. No. 11736 of 1995 was filed by the defendant-petitioner herein. THE trial court, while finally disposing of the said I.A.s., dismissed the abovesaid I.A. No. 9418 of 1995 filed by the plaintiff and allowed the abovesaid I.A. No. 11736 of 1995 and thereby vacated the ex parte injunction already granted.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the defendant-petitioner is the owner of the suit land and the prayer in the suit is for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from developing the said suit land. In the abovesaid I.A. No. 9418 of 1995, the temporary injunction pending suit, sought for, is also similar.

(3.) BUT, in the counter affidavit, though the defendant averred that the abovesaid "receipt" is fabricated, the payment of the abovesaid two sums of Rs. 1 lakh each, one on 5.4.1994 and another on 28.4.1994, is not now in dispute. What is further contended in the counter affidavit is that there was "no agreement relating to the development of the abovesaid property at all". Further his contention is that in any event, based on the abovesaid receipt, the plaintiff cannot seek for the injunction relief since according to the plaintiff, injunction can be granted only if there is a prima facie case made out for specific performance of any contract. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff purchased stamp papers on 19.5.1994 and prepared the development agreement, etc. He also denied the handing over of the documents etc. He also asserted that he never undertook to sign any joint development agreement with the plaintiff, nor agreed to receive 50% of the developed area. He also denied that the plaintiff spent Rs. 25,000/- for getting patta and stated that he never asked the plaintiff to obtain patta or to pay any tax. He also contended that the plaintiff has no capacity to develop the property at all and that in any event the clearance of the Appropriate Authority under Income-tax Act, was not got.