Dismissed

Dharmarajan v. M/S.Elgi Rubber Company Ltd.

Madras HC28 Mar 2023CMA/776/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by a defendant resisting a temporary injunction. The High Court affirmed the lower court's order granting interim relief to a plaintiff who purchased the property and established possession via sale deeds and revenue records (patta).

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed, the order of the lower court was confirmed, and no costs were awarded to the appellant.

Dharmarajan Vs M/S.Elgi Rubber Company Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 28.03.2023

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

The HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

¶5

C.M.A.No.776 of 2023 and

¶6

C.M.P.No.4639 of 2021

¶7

1.Dharmarajan

¶8

2.Ranjithkumar 3.Yoganath

4.Vishnukumar

... Appellants

Vs.

M/s.ELGI Rubber Company Limited, rep., by its Chief Financial Officer, S.R.Venkatachalam,S/O.Ramasamy, a company duly incorporated under the companies Act 1956, Registered Officer at 2000, Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore-641 005. ... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the fair and final order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.395 of 2020.

¶14

For Appellants : Mr.L.Mouli For respondent : Mr.S.Mukunth

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/8

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The respondent in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.395 of 2020 is the appellant in the appeal.

¶18

The suit in O.S.No.395 of 2020 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff herein for permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending suit the respondent/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.2 of 2020 for temporary injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from disturbing his peaceful possession till disposal of the suit.

¶19

According to the respondent/plaintiff he had purchased the suit

¶20

property in S.F.Nos.75/2A and 75/2B aggregating to 3.66 acres in Alandurai village and two sale deeds were registered on 18.03.2020 as Doc.Nos.2113/2020 and 2114 of 2020 before the Sub Registrar, Thondamuthur. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the possession of the suit property was delivered to him at the time of the purchase and the same was recited in the sale deeds. The respondent/plaintiff also got

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/8

¶22

revenue records mutated in his name and the patta for the suit property was issued in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. While so, the appellant/defendant forcibly trespassed into the suit property and so the respondent/plaintiff lodged a complaint on 30.07.2020 against the appellant/defendant for attempted tress pass on 29.07.2020, at the Karunya nagar police station. As the police did not take appropriate action, the respondent/plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for permanent injunction and for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit.

¶23

The appellant/defendant filed a detailed counter narrating the

¶24

background of the case culminating in the sale deeds in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The main ground that was raised against the injunction application was that by allowing the interim application for temporary injunction, the Court would be deciding the main suit itself. The appellant/defendant further stated that the respondent/plaintiff admitted the possession of the appellant/defendant in the complaint lodged by him before the Karunya Nagar Police Station. The appellant/defendant disputed the respondents/plaintiffs' possession of the suit properties. On these grounds, the appellant/defendant prayed for

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/8

¶26

dismissal of the I.A.No.2 of 2020, for temporary injunction.

¶27

The Court below on assessment of evidence available on record and on basis of the documents filed by the respondent/plaintiff granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the fair and decreetal order passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.2 of 2020, the appellant/defendant has filed the above appeal.

¶28

The short point for consideration in this appeal is whether the lower Court was justified in granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff purchased the suit property from on Sathivel under two sale deeds dated 18.03.2020 under Ex.P.20. After purchase of the suit properties by the respondent/plaintiff, the respondent/plaintiff was issued patta under Exs.P.8 and P.9. On the basis of said four documents and other connected documents the respondent/plaintiff prayed for temporary injunction in his favour, stating that he was in absolute possession of the suit property in

¶29

pursuance of the sale in his favour.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/8

¶31

The appellant/defendant on the other hand disputed the physical possession of the properties by the respondent/plaintiff and further stated that the sale in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was on the basis of a forged life certificate and therefore the sale in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was illegal and invalid. On the issue of possession, it was stated that the various encumbrance certificates marked as Exs.R1 and R2 clearly established that the possession remained with the appellant/defendant.

¶32

The learned counsel for the appellant at the time of the arguments submitted that the physical possession remained with the appellant/defendant as seen from the various entries in the encumbrance certificate. The learned counsel further submitted that by granting the interim relief the trial Court had foreclosed the issues in the suit as the suit itself was filed for permanent injunction. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the lower Court was justified in granting temporary injunction as Exs.P1, P.2 P.3, P.8 and P.9 would clearly establish that the respondent was owner of the property and in possession and enjoyment of the same. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff had made out a prima

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/8

¶34

facie case and therefore the trial Court was justified in allowing the application for temporary injunction. The learned counsel further relied on the case, in K.P.M.Aboobucker vs. K.Kunhamoo reported in AIR 1958 MAD 287 and submitted that the order of temporary injunction could be granted only if the Court was prima facie satisfied that the party was entitled to the main relief in the main suit.

¶35

I have heard both the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material placed on record.

¶36

The respondent has filed documents of title under Exs.P.2 and

¶37

P.3 to prove that he was the owner of the property. The respondent produced Exs.P.8 and P.9, patta for the suit properties which were issued in his favour. The said documents throw light on the prima facie title and possession of the suit properties by the respondent. On the other hand,

¶38

the only documents filed by the appellant are encumbrance certificates under Ex.B2 and the complaint given by the respondent against the appellant. In my view both the documents are irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the possession of the suit properties. The Ex.B.1, encumbrance certificate as rightly pointed out by the learned senior

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/8

¶40

counsel for the respondent only reflects instances of transactions referred to therein. The said document is in no way connected to the respondents possession of the suit properties. Even the complaint Ex.P.2 relied by the learned counsel for the appellant clearly recites that appellant had tres passed into the suit property and therefore the said complaint cannot amount to the admission of the possession of the appellant. In my view the trial Court has rightly found that in the absence of any evidence to show the possession of the suit properties and in the light of the documents filed by the appellant more particularly the sale deeds and patta, the respondent would be entitled to relief of temporary injunction. I therefore do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court and the same is confirmed. I do not find any merits in the appeal and therefore the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶41

28.03.2023

¶42

jai Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/8

¶44

N.MALA, J. jai

¶45

To:

¶46

The I Additional District Judge, .

¶47

C.M.A.No.776 of 2021

¶48

28.03.2023

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/8

Dharmarajan v. M/S.Elgi Rubber Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmarajan v. M/S.Elgi Rubber Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Regional Manager Vs M.Sivagurunadhan

R.Arunachalam Vs the Competent Authority/District Revenue Officer

The Divisional Manager Vs Anjalam

S.Robert Vs M.Thangaraj

Wasee Munissa Vs the Managing Director

N.Kasthuri Vs v.Kamala Kannan