N.B.BALAGA PERUMAL (DIED) THROUGH HIS POWER AGENT ARASAMANI Vs. T.P.SOKKALAI RAMSAIT SAMATHI TRUST MUKKOODAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent / plaintiff originally laid the suit for injunction against the revision petitioner / defendant. It is found that the said suit, after contest, had been dismissed. On appeal to the High Court, it is noted that the High Court had remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. Pursuant to the same, it is found that the plaintiff has amended the plaint by including the relief of declaration also and thereafter, the parties went for trial and ultimately, the suit laid by the plaintiff had come to be dismissed by the Trial Court. The appeal preferred by it also ended in dismissal. Challenging the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below, it is seen that the plaintiff had also preferred S.A.No.950 of 1992.

(2.) During the course of the second appeal proceedings, it is found that the plaintiff had sought for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till the disposal of the second appeal on the footing that it had been granted the order of injunction during the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court and further, according to it, inasmuch it has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, according to the plaintiff, during the pendency of the second appeal, if no injunction is granted and the plaintiff is dispossessed from the suit properties, it would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and also the second appeal would become infructuous and therefore, considering the above circumstances, it is contended and prayed that the Court should order the relief of injunction sought for by the plaintiff in the miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.8371 of 1993) filed in the second appeal. Per contra, it is noted that the defendant contended that all along the suit properties had been in his possession and enjoyment and the plaintiff had never in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and therefore, the plaintiff having lost its case in both the Courts below, it was contended that it should not be granted the relief sought for and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the miscellaneous petition.

(3.) The High Court, considering the rival contentions put forth by the respective parties in the matter, noted that the plaintiff had the benefit of injunction during the course of trial and also during the course of first appellate stage and therefore, holding that inasmuch as the plaintiff had prima facie established to be in possession of the suit properties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, proceeded to accept its case and accordingly held that its possession should be protected till the disposal of the second appeal, however, also considering the totality of the circumstances, passed a conditional order in the miscellaneous petition ordering the injunction sought for by the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the suit properties on condition that the plaintiff deposits Rs.40,000/- on or before 01.05.1993 and continues to deposit at the same rate on the First of May of every succeeding years, failing which the injunction will be vacated automatically. Further direction was also given to the Trial Court that on such deposit by the plaintiff, the Trial Court should invest the amount in anyone of the Nationalized Banks in cumulative deposit initially for a period of three years.