M PALANISAMY Vs. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.81 of 2018 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi and the appellant in C.M.A.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi. The suit was filed by the plaintiff / respondent herein for injunction, restraining the defendant from causing hindrance to the operation of his bus bearing Regn.No.TN-76-A-9995 and during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application in I.A.No.252 of 2018, for granting interim injunction pending disposal of the suit, in which, the interim relief sought for was granted in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/defendant had preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.3 of 2018, which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court, thereby confirming the order dated 02.04.2018 passed in I.A.No.252 of 2018. Challenging both the orders, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) The case of the revision petitioner herein is that the subject vehicle, bearing Regn.No.TN-76-A-9995 is a family property and the same is being operated from Tenkasi to Aaikudi after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Transport Department. While so, the respondent herein, by way of an alleged oral agreement dated 106.2015 with his brothers, had stated to have partitioned the family properties, due to which, he had received the subject bus as his share and the original deed is said to be in possession of one Rathinasamy / elder brother of the plaintiff, which is not true. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent herein had been selling the family properties without the consent of other family members and he had also not given any share in the property. The petitioner had stated that he had paid the insurance premium in respect of the vehicle and as such, the submission of the respondent that the original document of the bus is with him is denied.

(3.) The revision petitioner states that the respondent has been cheating his own brother and also attempting to grab the bus. The subject vehicle stands in the name of the petitioner and suppressing the said fact and with an intention to disturb the management of the bus by the petitioner, the respondent has filed the suit, in which the Trial Court has granted interim injunction against the defendant without appreciating the factual matrix and the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The revision petitioner further states that though there was an admittance by the petitioner herein with regard to the unregistered partition deed dated 12.06.2015, pursuant to non-fulfilment of the condition by the eldest member of the family, the agreement did not come into force and therefore, the claim on the basis of the said agreement is baseless and unsustainable in law. Therefore, it is prayed that the orders of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court need interference by this Court.