LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-21

ARUN KAPUR Vs. ATUL KAPUR

Decided On March 10, 2008
ARUN KAPUR Appellant
V/S
ATUL KAPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Side Appeal is filed by the Appellants/Applicants/Defendants as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Application No.1519 of 2006 in C.S.No.985 of 2004 dated 08.06.2007.

(2.) IN an Application No.1519 of 2006 in C.S. No.985 of 2004 filed by the appellants/Applicants/Defendants praying for relief of ad interim mandatory injunction directing the respondent/Plaintiff to vacate possession of the premises viz., Pent House No.9-A, situated at "Ved Nivas" No.52, Taylors Road, Kilpauk Chennai-600 010 and restore the possession of the said House to them, the learned single Judge has passed orders on 08.06.2007 inter alia observing that 'But the applicants/Defendants were not able to establish that the respondent/Plaintiff has not been in possession of the Pent house before obtaining the order of interim injunction from the Division Bench nor they were able to establish that the respondent/Plaintiff trespassed into the pent house only after the orders of the Division Bench. The higher Standard of proof that is more than a prima facie case required for granting such order is lacking in the present case etc.' and has come to the resultant conclusion that considering the relationship of parties also, it cannot be said at this juncture that the respondent/Plaintiff is a trespasser and he has to restore possession to the applicants/Defendants and dismissed the said application.

(3.) THE respondent/Plaintiff has originally filed the suit C.S.No.985 of 2004 praying for the relief of partition of the immovable property described in the plaint schedule and for separate possession of his 11014/28284 share and for directing the first appellant/first defendant to render true and correct amount of the income from the said property collected by him and for cost of the suit. Subsequently, as per order passed in Application No.1638 of 2005 dated 05.01.2006, the plaint was amended and a relief that the release deed is illegal, inoperative and unenforceable was included.