JAYACHITRA Vs. A N S NALL AZHAGU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals are directed against the common order dated 20. 9. 2005, passed by the learned single Judge in O. A. No. 568 of 2005, Appln. Nos. 2341, 2775 and 3947 of 2005 arising out of C. S. No. 479 of 2005.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows :- THE suit bearing C. S. No. 479 of 2005 has been filed by the plaintiffs/respondents against the present appellants/defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and enjoyment of � a� Schedule property, except by due process of law, and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver the original title deeds and documents as indicated in � b� schedule. Schedule � a� consist of land and building. THEre is no dispute that such land and house belong to the plaintiffs. On 15. 12. 1999, there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants for sale of the property bearing Door no. 91, Poes Garden , chennai. A sum of Rs. 70 lakhs had been paid by the defendants and a further sum of Rs. 70 lakhs was paid towards fixtures and furniture. THE title deeds relating to the disputed house were deposited with an Advocate mr. N. S. Varadachari. According to the plaintiffs, even though other formalities such as clearance from the Income Tax Department, permission from the High court regarding sale of minor� s share had been obtained, the defendants did not evince any interest in completion of the transaction. In the meantime, the plaintiffs 2 & 3 had been adjudicated as Insolvents, which has been subsequently revoked. While the matter stood thus, according to the plaintiffs, the defendants forcibly trespassed upon a portion of the property on 13. 1. 2005 and no action was taken by the police in spite of the complaint given by the plaintiffs. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the suit was filed for the reliefs already indicated. During pendency of such suit, the plaintiffs filed O. A. No. 568 of 2005 for interim injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit � a� Schedule property and an ex-parte order of injunction was granted on 18. 5. 2005. Appln. No. 2341 of 2005 had been filed by the defendants for vacating the above order of interim injunction. Appln. No. 2775 of 2005 had been filed by the plaintiffs seeking for interim mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the original title deeds/documents indicated in the suit � b� Schedule to the custody of Mr. N. S. Varadhachari. Appln. No. 3947 of 2005 had been filed by the defendants for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect � a� schedule property and to submit report regarding actual possession of the said property. Pursuant to a direction issued in the said application, the Advocate Commissioner submitted a report on 2. 9. 2005.

(3.) IN the present case, the main contention of the plaintiffs is to the effect that as per the agreement of sale, possession was to be delivered to the defendants on the completion of the transaction at the time of registration of the document and for the aforesaid purpose, the title deeds and other relevant documents are kept under the safe custody of an advocate, namely, Mr. N. S. Varadhachari and the defendants have obtained such documents by dubious means and also forcibly trespassed upon a portion of the property in the first floor and, therefore, necessary orders protecting the right and possession of the plaintiffs should be passed.