T S M CHELLIAH Vs. REV DR GNANAVASAKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1901 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsiff. Tiruchirapalli. They have filed the said suit, against the respondents herein seeking for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents herein from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the subject matter of the suit and for costs. It is the case of the petitioners that they entered into an agreement of sale with the respondents on 16.7.1987 to purchase the suit property and they have paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as an advance and by way of Part -performance. The petitioners have been put in possession of the suit properties. The petitioners filed an application, I.A.No.1366 of 1990 seeking for an order of injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, pending the suit. The trial court by order dated 1.3.1991 has allowed the application as against which the respondents herein filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.24 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The lower appellate Court has allowed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 18.7.1995. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

(2.) MR .R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the trial court had, after elaborately considering the contentions of both the parties, granted interim injunction, pending disposal of the suit, whereas the lower appellate court has, without considering the rival claims of the parties, in its proper and correct perspectiveness, simply allowed the appeal. Moreover, the lower Appellate Court has also given a finding against the petitioners herein which virtually amounts to the dismissal of the suit and at least on this ground, the judgment of the lower Appellate Court has to be set aside.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is true that the lower Appellate Court has elaborately discussed the matter and gave a finding in all aspects against the petitioners herein. If those findings are allowed to stand, virtually there is no need for the trial of the suit. But, however, whatever finding is given in the interlocutory proceedings cannot weigh much at the time of the trial and the trial court has to dispose of the suit without being carried away by the findings given either by the lower Appellate Court or this Court during the interlocutory stager. Hence, I do not think this is a ground for setting aside the order of the lower Appellate Court. As pointed out by the lower Appellate Court, prima facie the suit itself may not be maintainable. When the petitioners seek the relief on the basis of the suit agreement, it is for them to establish the same and to file a suit for specific performance instead of the suit for bare injunction. As pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, the other side of the picture has also to be considered. What would happen if the suit is decreed? While decreeing the suit, there cannot be a decree for a restricted period and ultimately this would lead to the petitioners - possession and enjoyment without paying the sale consideration. Hence I am of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the finding of the lower Appellate Court. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.