CRP/5054/2026 of Jeyandran Daniel Moses Vs J.B.Malhotra on 16 October 2026

ORDER

The 2nd defendant in O.S.No.1085 of 2024 is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.490 of 2015 and confirmed in CMA.No. 23 of 2021 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Alandur.

2. I have heard Mr.M.Velmurugan for M/s.Colonel and Ganesan Associates, learned counel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents 1 and 2.

3. Mr.M.Velmurugan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the suit had been filed for declaration, challenging the purchase made by the defendant in the year 2014. He would further state that though the plaintiff traces title to the suit property from 1984, the plaintiff has not challenged the sale deed executed in the year 1986 by the plaintiff himself to one Mr.Shankar Mohan in the year 2000, who in turn, sold the property to the defendants. He would therefore state that without a challenge to the 1986 sale deed in favour of Shankar Mohan, the plaint itself has no legs to stand. That apart, it is the specific contention

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:25 am )

of M.Velmurugan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner that along with the suit, an interlocutory application was filed under Order XXXIX of CPC, praying for an interim injunction, as if the plaintiff was in physical possession of the property. Though the application for an interim injunction was contested, the Trial Court, namely the Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur, granted an injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants, including the revision petitioner from alienating the suit property.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff exhibited 18 documents, namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and on the side of the revision petitioner, four documents, namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 were exhibited. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that none of the 18 documents, that were relied on by the respondent/plaintiff establish the factum of possession being with the plaintiff, entitling the plaintiff to an order of interim injunction. He would therefore state that the Courts below have clearly fell in error in factoring the necessary ingredients that have to be made out, before becoming entitled to an order of interim injunction under Order XXXIX of CPC, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irrepparable loss and hardships.

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:25 am )

5. Mr.M.Velmurugan, learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that though the order was challenged by way of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and further additional documents were also relied on by the revision petiitoner, by taking out interlocutory applications, the learned Subordinate Judge, Alandur, has erroneously confirmed the order of injunction granted by the Trial Court and has also proceeded to dismiss the application filed in the CMA, for adducing additional evidence. He has also taken me through the various documents that have been enclosed in the typed set of papers. However, when the petitioner has not challenged the dismissal of the applications filed for adducing additional evidence independently, I am unable to see how in this revision, testing the order of the Trial Court as confirmed by the Appellate Court, I can look into any new or additional documents, especially when the order dismising the application to adduce additional evidence has become final. I am only testing the correctness of the orders passed by the Courts below, based on the materials placed by the parties before the Court. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the dismissal of the applications for adducing additional evidence, then the pettioner ought to have independently challenged the dismissal of the interlocutory applications filed in the CMA. Admittedly, the same has not been done and hence, I am unable to look into any of the additional documents that are now relied on by the learned counsel for

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:25 am )

the petitioner. I have to therefore necessarily proceed on the basis of the dcuments that were originally exhibited before the Trial Court, which formed the basis of the order passed by the Trial Court, granting injunction as well as the judgment of the Appellate Court, confirming the order of injunction.

6. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the plaintiff has himself sold the property in 1986 and suppressing the same, the suit has been filed, on going through the plaint averments, I find that the caterogical case of the plaintiff is that the property is an extent of 5 grounds and admittedly vacant land. In 2013, the plaintiff has settled two grounds each in favour of his two brothers and retained one ground. The original documents of title are also specifically claimed to be in the custody of the plaintiff.

7. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have found that the claim of the revision petitioner to be a bonafide purchaser is not prima facie acceptable and the mutation of revenue records in favour of the revision petiitoner was also obtained, only after the grant of injunction by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court have rightly considered the trinity factors, namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:25 am )

irreperrable loss and hardships to the party if relief is not granted and discussing each of the three principles independently, found that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and also held balance of convenience and irreparrable loss and hardships to be in favour of the plaintiff. The Court also took note of the fact that the vendor of the appellant, who is claimed to have purchased the entire 5 grounds of suit property from the plaintiff, chose to remain ex-parte before the Courts, creating a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the claim of the revision petitioner to title over the suit property.

8. Once the Court finds that the plaintiff has established prima facie title, then possession, especially when the suit property is a vacant land, would follow title and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court granting an interim injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. In the light of the above, I do not see any grounds to interefere with the concurrent findings rendered in the interlocutory application, warranting interference in revision.

9. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. The Trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.1085 of 2024, within a

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:25 am )

period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 16.10.2026 Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata To

1. The Subordinate Judge, Alandur.

2. The Sub-Registrar, Neelangarai, Chennai.

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:25 am )

P.B.BALAJI.

J, ata Pre-delivery order made in CRP.No.5054 of 2026 16.10.2026

( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 11:47:25 am )