CHELLAM IYER Vs. J RANGANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.A.No.659 of 2007 is filed by the plaintiffs seeking an order of interim injunction till the disposal of the Suit. Application No.4581 of 2007 is filed by defendants 1 to 3 seeking to vacate the ad interim injunction already granted in O.A.No.659 of 2007.

(2.) TO avoid confusion, the plaintiffs are referred to as applicants and defendants 1 to 3 are referred to as respondents.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the documents produced on the side of the applicants would go to establish that the Plaint -C- schedule property also was purchased by the applicants and defendants 6 to 9. When the -C- schedule property, which is the disputed portion, is their exclusive property and alternative pathway is there for respondents 1 to 3 to reach their property lying on the east of the properties of the applicant, respondents 1 to 3 do not have any right of ingress and egress on the -C- schedule property. The documents produced would show that the pathway running north to south beyond the gate in the -C- schedule property alone has been made as a common pathway wherein respondents 1 and 2 have right of enjoyment. The boundaries shown in the title deeds would prevail upon the extent of the property mentioned therein. If the order of injunction is vacated, there will be intrusion into the exclusive property of the applicants and defendants 6 to 9. Therefore, he would submit that the order of injunction granted shall be made absolute.