Madras High Court
D.J.Rajendran vs K. Velumani on 15 June, 2023
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 15/6/2023
C O RAM
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
Civil Revision Petition PD No.1149 of 2023
D.J.Rajendran ... Petitioner
Vs
K. Velumani ... Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set
aside the fair and decreetal order dated 7/12/2022 in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in
O.S.No.400 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge,
Salem.
For Petitioner ... Dr.A.Thiagarajan
Senior Advocate
for Ms.A.Vinupradha
For Respondent ... Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan
Sr. Advocate
for Ms.Aswini Devi
-----
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/13
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed, aggrieved by the order passed in
I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.400 of 2019, dated 7/12/2022, by the learned
II Additional District Judge, Salem, declining to order police aid to the
petitioner in implementing interim injunction orders.
2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this Civil Revision
Petition are as follows:-
Originally, the respondent/defendant was the owner of a residential
building, he has executed a gift settlement deed, dated 30/10/2000, in
favour of his wife Suguna Devi, in respect of a portion of the said
property, to the extent of 768 sq.feet, vide, Document No.2363/2000, on
the file of No.I Joint Sub-Registrar, District Registrar Office, Salem, West
District. The respondent/defendant has executed another gift settlement
deed in favour of his wife Suguna Devi, on 10/1/2001, in respect of the
remaining part of the schedule of property, consisting of 467 sq.ft., vide
Document No.1985/2001, on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar - I,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
District Registrar Office, Salem West District. Subsequently, in all the
records including the revenue records, electricity connection, water
connection, etc., name of the respondent's Suguna Devi is entered and she
has been in continuous possession of the suit property.
3. On 24/4/2012, the respondent wife Suguna Devi, who is the owner
of the schedule of property has executed an agreement of sale, in favour
of the petitioner, agreed to sell the said property, for a sum of Rs.25
lakhs, vide, registered agreement, bearing Document No.Book
1/1567/2012, on the file of Joint Registrar No.I, District Registrar Office,
Salem West. On the day of agreement, an amount of Rs.22 lakhs was
paid by the petitioner in favour of the respondent's wife, leaving the
balance of Rs.3 lakhs, who has agreed to execute the registered sale deed,
within a period of three years, from the date of agreement.
4. On 10/4/2015, the respondent has informed the petitioner that his
wife is not keeping good heath and thereby, they were unable to shift
their residence and thereby, sought for extension of time by 11 more
months, to execute the registered sale deed, for which the petitioner has
accepted and accordingly, registered agreement, dated 24/4/2012 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
also executed, extending the time for execution of registered sale deed.
The respondent's wife Suguna Devi has executed a General Power of
Attorney, in favour of the respondent, on 14/3/2016, which was
registered as Document No.Book/1/865/2016, at Joint Sub-Registrar,
Salem. On 21/3/2016, the respondent as a Power of Attorney holder of
Suguna Devi has received a balance sale consideration of Rs.3 lakhs from
the petitioner and executed a registered sale deed, in favour of the
petitioner, on 21/3/2016, bearing registered Document No.959/2016, on
the file of No.I, Joint Sub-Registrar, District Registrar Office, Salem West.
On the very same day, the respondent and his wife have vacated the suit
schedule property and handed over the possession to the petitioner.
Subsequently, the property tax, water tax, electricity connection, etc.,
were changed from the name of Suguna Devi, wife of respondent to the
name of the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner was in continuous
possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.
5. In the last week of July 2019, the petitioner came to know that the
respondent, who is a practising Advocate-cum-notary has been using the
house property purchased by the petitioner as his residential/office
address. The petitioner started receiving the postal communications,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
letters, etc., belonging to the petitioner's address, as if the respondent is
still residing in the said property. The respondent has put up a big sign
board showing his office address as the house property of the petitioner.
The petitioner has issued a legal notice, dated 3/8/2019, deprecating the
attitude of the respondent and filed a suit for permanent injunction, in
O.S.No.400 of 2019, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Salem,
for seeking ad-interim injunction. The respondent/defendant has filed
I.A.No.3 of 2019, against the petitioner. Vide, order, dated 1/2/2020, the
learned I Additional District Judge, Salem, has dismissed I.A.Nos.1 and 2
of 2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred
C.M.A.No.1044 of 2020 and the respondent has preferred
C.M.A.No.1331 of 2020 before this Court and by order, dated 21/9/2020,
a learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed C.M.A.No.1044 of 2020
filed by the petitioner and dismissed C.M.A.No.1331 of 2020 filed by the
respondent which again was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
in S.L.P.Nos.867 and 868 of 2021.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.3 of
2021 in O.S.No.400 of 2019, to give Police aid and also production of the
property to the petitioner, as per the order, dated 21/9/2020. Vide, order,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
dated 7/12/2022, the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, has
dismissed the application. Being aggrieved, the instant Civil Revision
Petition has been filed.
7. Heard Mr.A.Thiagarajan, Sr.Advocate, for the petitioner,
Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Senior Advocate for the respondent and perused the
record.
8. The point for determination is whether the Police aid can be
granted to the petitioner as sought for in I.A.No.3 of 2021.
9. There is no dispute that the petitioner has purchased the schedule
of property under a registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, on
the day of execution of registered sale deeds, the possession of the
schedule of property was also delivered to the petitioner. When the
respondent was attempting to dispossess the petitioner, the petitioner has
filed O.S.No.400 of 2019 and also moved an application, in I.A.No.1 of
2020, seeking interim injunction. The respondent has filed I.A.No.3 of
2019. On hearing on both sides, the trial Court has declined to grant
interim injunction in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
filed C.M.A.Nos.1044 and 1331 of 2020. Vide, order, dated 21/9/2020,
this Court has allowed C.M.A.No.1044 of 2020 filed by the petitioner
and dismissed the C.M.A.No.1331 of 2020 filed by the respondent. The
respondent has filed S.L.P.Nos.867 and 868 of 2021, aggrieved by the
common order passed in C.M.A.Nos.1044 and 1331. On account of
dismissal of S.L.P, order passed by this Court granting interim injunction
against the respondent has become final.
10. Now, it is alleged by the petitioner that in spite of having
injunction order in favour of the petitioner, granted by this Court, still
the respondent disobeying the same and trying to intervene and sought
for Police aid, thereby, the petitioner has moved an application, in
I.A.No.3 of 2021 to the trial Court, under Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, to issue a direction to the Inspector of Police,
Hasthampatti, to give Police aid and also production of the property, as
per the order made in C.M.A.Nos.1044 and 1331 of 2020, dated
21/9/2020. The trial Court has dismissed the same on the ground that
wife of the respondent, who was the original owner of the schedule of
property has filed O.S.No.286 of 2020 against the petitioner, for relief of
declaration of right and title over the schedule of property and consequent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
to declare sale deed, dated 21/3/2016 through which the respondent has
executed registered sale deed, in favour of the petitioner, as General
Power of Attorney holder of the wife of the respondent, as null and void
and also sought for grant of interim injunction. The respondent has also
filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.286 of 2020 seeking for ad interim
injunction. However, such interim orders have not been granted. The
learned trial Judge has observed that O.S.No.400 of 2019 filed by the
petitioner seeking perpetual injunction is ripe for trial and in the
meantime, the respondent has filed an application for rejection of petition
and the said petition is reserved for orders. Therefore, it is observed that
filing of this application seeking for Police aid is a premature one.
11. The learned Judge in his judgment has cited a decision, in
ABDUL SUKHURE BHAI Vs. DURAI KUPPUSWAMY 1996 (1) LW
52, wherein it was concluded that the Police aid sought for by the
petitioner is a premature one.
12. It is to be noted that when the trial Court has failed to appreciate
the facts and failed to grant interim injunction as sought for, the
petitioner has approached this Court and by way of detailed order, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
Court has set aside the order passed by the trial Court and granted
interim injunction against the respondent. Order in C.M.A further speaks
that the trial Court was influenced by the respondent, who is a counsel
and notary and thereby, the case has been transferred to other Court.
13. The respondent has admitted the sale transactions in favour of
the petitioner. Therefore, when the suit transactions have already been
admitted, once injunction order has already been granted, if the
respondent is openly defying the orders, and if the Courts are not coming
forward to the rescue of the petitioner in implementing the interim
injunction orders, whole exercise becomes abuse of process of law. It is
settled legal proposition that in order to protect injunction orders granted
by the Courts, granting of Police protection is necessary.
14. Further, while disposing of C.M.A, this Court has categorically
held that the petitioner has got a prima facie case, balance of convenience
and irreparable damage would be caused, in case, if interim injunction
was not granted thereby, interim injunction was granted. Further, the
wife of the respondent, who was originally the owner of the property has
filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed, through which the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
respondent has sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff
that means the respondent and his wife have been admitting the execution
of the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Recitals in the said
sale deed would go to show that possession of the property has already
been delivered to the petitioner.
15. Further, the suit is filed by the wife of the respondent. I.A is filed
seeking injunction against the petitioner, but the said injunction is not
granted in her favour. In the contrary, this Court has granted interim
injunction against the respondent in favour of the petitioner. Therefore,
when interim injunction has already been granted in favour of the
petitioner against the respondent, on the allegation that the respondent is
trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and
other schedule of property, the Courts are required to intervene and
protect the rights of the petitioner by way of issuance of suitable
directions to the Police concerned. In case, if these orders are not issued,
the very purpose of issuing the injunction orders will be infructuous and
will not be useful.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
16. Further, the trial Court has observed that since the suit filed by
the wife of the respondent is ripe for disposal, thereby until the disposal
of those suits, filing of this petition is premature. By saying so, the
learned trial Judge, intending that the Police protection cannot be granted
unless the permanent injunction is granted after full fledged trial which
means, the Police protection cannot be ordered, in order to protect an ad
interim injunction. This observation of the trial Judge is totally
erroneous and uncalled for.
17. It is the settled legal position that whether orders have passed by
way of interlocutory application or permanent injunction, if the
respondent is interfering with the possession of the petitioner, by
disobeying the order of injunction, the Courts can come to the rescue of
the petitioner by issuing suitable directions to the Police. Considering
from all the angles, this Court is inclined to set aside the order, dated
7/12/2022 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem.
18. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, and the
order, dated 7/12/2022, passed by the learned II Additional District
Judge, Salem is set aside. The Inspector of Police, Hasthampatti, is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
hereby directed to give Police protection to the restrain acts of the
respondent. No costs.
15/6/2023
Index :yes/no
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mvs.
To
II Additional District Judge, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.PD.No1149 of 2023
Dr.D.NAGARJUN,J
mvs.
C.R.P.PD.No.1149 of 2023
15/6/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
