S.R.SELVARAJ Vs. KRISHNA RATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition were directed to be listed before this Court as 'specially ordered cases' along with Writ Petition No.26002 of 2001 filed by respondents-3 to 7 in the Second Appeal as against the impugned order dated 15.12.2001 passed by the R.D.O., Chengalpattu. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, it seems that R3 to R7 in the Second Appeal/petitioners in the W.P. filed Revision before the authority concerned. THErefore, for proper disposal of the pending revision petition, the Writ Petition is ordered to be de-linked and consequently, the interconnected Second Appeal and the CRP are taken up for joint hearing and now, disposed of by this Common Judgment.

(2.) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs before both the courts below have brought this Second Appeal, challenging the Judgment and decree, dated 06.03.2007, passed by the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in A.S. No.707 of 2006 on 06.03.2007, in and by which, the judgment and decree, dated 21.07.2006, passed by the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, refusing to grant an order of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants herein, restraining the defendants and their men and agents from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property situated at No.145, New No.134, Neelankarai Village, Saidapet Taluk, bearing survey No.84/1A measuring an extent of 1 acre and 50 cents, came to confirmed.

(3.) WHILE addressing his arguments on the first two substantial questions of law, Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned senior counsel for the appellants, submitted that the courts below have wrongly held against the plaintiffs/appellants that the suit for injunction is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of title. He pointed out that respondents-3 to 7 herein/D3 to D7 in the suit, without even impleading the appellants, filed a suit in O.S.No.481 of 2001 before the District Munsif, Alandur, as against RR-1 and 2/D1 and D2 alone, who are vendors of the plaintiffs/appellants herein, seeking for grant of bare injunction in respect of the very same suit property prior to filing of the suit in O.S. No.6992/01-subject matter of the present Second Appeal. Even the ex-parte injunction granted to R3 to R7 herein/plaintiffs in the said suit-OS No.481 of 2001 was subsequently vacated, whereupon, the aggrieved plaintiffs/R3 to R7 herein filed an appeal in CMA No.21 of 2002 before the Sub Court, which was also dismissed on 06.10.2005, negativing the case of R3 to R7 herein/plaintiffs in O.S. No.481 of 2001. CPR PD Nos.1020 and 1021 of 2007 filed against the order passed in CMA No.21 of 2002 were also dismissed by orders dated 05.06.2007. Therefore, respondents-3 to 7 herein have been found to be not entitled for injunction in respect of the suit property even against R1 and R2/vendors of the plaintiffs-appellants herein. By pointing out the above aspects, learned Senior Counsel would state that when the case of respondents-3 to 7 for bare injunction was already concluded against them, the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellants should have been decreed with further direction to the parties to approach the competent court by filing separate suit for declaration of title. According to him, since both the courts below did not appreciate the above mentioned vital aspects, their ultimate concurrent findings absolutely deserve interference at the hands of this Court. Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel appearing for R1 and R2 herein, adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants on all the issues.