Madras High Court
T.Krishnasamy Vandayar vs M.Bhuvaneswari on 7 October, 2025
CRP.(PD)No.4603 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.No.4603 of 2025
and CMP.No.23297 of 2025
T.Krishnasamy Vandayar ... Petitioner / 1st defendant
vs.
1.M.Bhuvaneswari .... Respondent No.1 / plaintiff
2.R.Natarajan .... Respondent No.2 / 2nd defendant
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India as against the order dated 21.07.2025 made in CMA.No.1 / 2025 on the file
of the Sub Court at Mannargudi against I.A.No.214 / 2023 in O.S.No.65 of 2023
on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, at Needamangalam.
For Petitioner : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Advocate
for M/s.U.Karunakaran
For Respondents : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Advocate
for M/s.R.K.Ramaiah
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
CRP.(PD)No.4603 of 2025
ORDER
st
The unsuccessful 1 defendant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
One M.Bhuvaneshwari filed a Suit in O.S.No.65 of 2023, on the file of the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Needamangalam against one
T.Krishnasamy Vandayar / 1st defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff and one
Natarajan / 2nd defendant seeking for Permanent Injunction. The 1st defendant has
filed the written statement in the said suit and the same is adopted by the 2 nd
defendant. Necessary issues were framed and the case was posted for plaintiff's
side evidence and at that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.214/2023 in O.S.No.65
of 2023 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 CPC seeking for
temporary injunction restraining the defendants and their men not to disturb the
plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for
an ad-interim exparte order to the above effect till the disposal of the suit. Upon
hearing either side, the trial Court, vide order dated 24.01.2025, dismissed
I.A.No.214 / 2023 on the ground that the question as to who is in possession and
cultivating the suit schedule properties can be decided only in the trial and the
relief sought for in the interlocutory application and the relief sought for in the
main suit are one and the same and any findings arrived in this application would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
cause grave hardship to other side and also would have a bearing on the conduct
of the trial of the main suit.
2. Aggrieved over the said order, the plaintiff / M.Bhuvaneswari filed a civil
miscellaneous appeal in CMA.No.1 / 2025 and before the Sub-Court, Mannargudi.
Upon hearing either side, the First Appellate Court allowed the civil
miscellaneous appeal, vide order dated 21.07.2025, by setting aside the order
passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.214 / 2023 in O.S.No.65/2023 on the file of the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Needamangalam. Aggrieved over the
same, the 1st defendant / T.Krishnasamy Vandayar has preferred the present Civil
Revision Petition.
3. It is seen from the records that the Suit in O.S.No. 65/2023 has been filed
for the relief of Permanent Injunction. In the plaint, the description of the suit
schedule properties have been stated as under:
jpUthU:h; khtl;lk;. kd;dhh;Fo jhYf;fh.
rpj;jky;yp nky;ghjp fpuhkk;.
1/ g[y vz;/46-1?tp!;jPh;zk; 0/05 brz;;l; g[";ir epyk;/
,jw;F ehd;bfy;iy tpguk; ? tlf;fpy; tha;f;fhy; g[y
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
vz;/45-1. bjw;fpy; MjDhh; fpuhkk;. fpHf;fpy; g[y
vz;/46-2 ? tha;f;fhy;. 47 ? tha;f;fhy;. nkw;fpy; g[y
vz;/45-1 ? tha;;f;fhy; ,jw;Fl;gl;lJ/
2/ g[y vz;/46-3 ? tp!;jPh;zk; 0/43 brz;l; g[";ir epyk;/
3/ g[y vz;/49 ? tp!;jPh;zk; 3 Vf;fh; 72 brz;l; g[";ir
epyk;/
4/ g[y vz;/50 ? tp!;jPh;zk; 2 Vf;fh; 80 brz;l; g[";ir
epyk;/
5/ g[y vz;/51 ? tp!;jPh;zk; 3 Vf;fh; 22 brz;l; g[";ir
epyk;/
mapl;lk; 2 Kjy; 5?f;fhd ehd;bfy;iy tpguk;.
tlf;fpy; g[y vz;/90 ghij nuhL. bjw;fpy; g[y vz;/47
? tha;f;fhy;. g[y vz;/48 ? MW MjDhh; tUtha;
fpuhkk;. fpHf;fpy; g[y vz;/52-1A Jsrp ma;ah.
nkw;fpy; ? g[y vz;/46-2 tha;f;fhy;/
bkhj;jk; 10 Vf;fh; 22 brz;l; kl;Lk;
4. In support of the petition filed seeking for temporary injunction in
I.A.No.214/2023, it has been stated that the suit schedule properties were gifted to
the plaintiff by her father Thiru. Thulasiyah Vandayar by a registered Settlement
Deed dated 30.12.1969 and that the settlement deed has been accepted and acted
upon and at the time of execution of the settlement deed, the plaintiff was a minor,
aged 6 years and her mother Tmt.T.Padmavathi Ammal was appointed to maintain
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
the suit schedule properties till he attains major. After attaining majority, the
plaintiff alone was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
properties. Patta, Chitta and Adangal of the suit schedule properties were mutated
and stands in her name. Further it has been stated that the plaintiff settled at
Madurai after marriage and her husband continuously and usually comes to
maintain the suit schedule properties. The 1st defendant is the brother of the
plaintiff and since the 1st defendant is not in a proper brotherly relationship, the
defendants 1 and 2, with the aid of some local rowdies, colluded and attempted to
create a deceitful lease deeds and also continuously attempted to trespass into the
suit schedule properties and thereby disturbing her peaceful possession and
enjoyment on 30.07.2023 unlawfully. It is further stated that the plaintiff have a
prima facie case in her favour and balance of convenience also in her favour and
hence, the petition.
5. The 1st defendant has filed his objections and the same is adopted by the
2nd defendant, wherein the possession of the suit schedule properties by the
plaintiff has been denied and the 1st defendant is maintaining the properties and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
now one Gunaseelan, Rajeswari, Rajagopal, Banumathim, Selvam and Kalaiselvi
are in possession and they are doing cultivation in the suit schedule properties and
the above said facts have been suppressed by the plaintiff. The allegations
levelled in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff has been denied by the 1st defendant.
6. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, Exs.P1 to P9 were
marked. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Settlement Deed dated 30.12.1969.
Ex.P2 is the Patta, stands in the name of the plaintiff in Patta No.241, which was
issued on 29.09.2021. Ex.P3 is the Fasli receipt stands in the name of the plaintiff
dated 09.07.2024. Ex.P4 is Adangal No.1420. Ex.P5 is Adangal No.1421. Ex.P6
is Adangal No.1422. Ex.P7 is Adangal No.1426. Ex.P8 is Adangal No.1427 and
Ex.P9 is Adangal No.1428. A perusal of Ex.P2- Patta and Exs.P4 to P9 (Adangal
Receipts) shows that the name of the plaintiff is mentioned as Minor
Bhuvaneswari and also shows that Exs.P4 to P9 were issued on 18.08.2023. On
behalf of the defendants side, Rws.1 to 3 were examined and no document was
marked. The defendants have contended that the suit schedule properties are not
in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the cultivating tenants are in
occupation and they are cultivating the crops. To strengthen their case, they have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
examined RWs.1 to 3. Rws.1 to 3 were examined in chief and cross examined by
the plaintiff's side. RWs.1 to 3, in their oral evidence, deposed that they are doing
cultivation in the suit schedule properties.
7. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner / 1st defendant would submit that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are
legal heirs of the deceased Sri K.Thulasiyah Vandayar and Smt.Padmavathi
Ammal. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant had effected an oral family
arrangement on 20.05.2022. The Court below ought to have seen that the plaintiff,
being a party to the oral family partition, made by Smt.Padmavathi Ammal,
accepted the said partition and acted upon and had suppressed the same and filed
the Suit for partition and for separate possession in C.S.No.32 of 2024 before this
Court. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner would further
submit that the Appellate Court failed to consider that prior to the filing of the Suit
for partition in C.S.No.32 of 2024, the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.65 of
2023 along with an interlocutory application seeking for permanent injunction
against the 1st defendant, restraining the 1st defendant from alienating and
encumbering the suit property, which is covered under the suit properties in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
C.S.No.32 of 2024, which belongs to the 1st defendant and hence the plaintiff
cannot file separate suit for injunction. Hence the Trial Court has rightly
dismissed the interlocutory application. The Appellate Court, on an erroneous
application of law and facts, has allowed the appeal especially when all further
proceedings in O.S.No.65/203 was stayed by this Court in Appl.Nos.2944, 2945
of 2025, which is pending before this Court. While the stay is in force, the lower
Appellate Court had granted interim injunction against the 1st defendant, which is
bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
further submit that the Appellate Court, while granting interim orders, failed to
consider that the suit schedule properties is not in possession of the plaintiff and
further the plaintiff, behind his back, had obtained patta, adangal much before
filing of the suit and hence, the order of injunction granted against the 1st
defendant is liable to be set aside. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision
petitioner, in support of his contentions, has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Wander Ltd. and Another v. Antox India P. Ltd. [1990
(Supp) SCC 727], to show that the appellate court will not interfere with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion
except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or
capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of
law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory applications. An appeal against
exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will
not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one
reached by the Court below, if the one reached by that court was reasonably
possible on the material.
9. Per contra, Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent / plaintiff would submit that the Trial Court has failed to
consider the scope of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC eventhough the plaintiff
had chosen to show her title under Ex.P1-Settlement Deed executed by her father
Thiru Thulasiyah Vandayar in the year 1969. After attaining majority, the plaintiff
alone is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. In order to
establish possession, the plaintiff has filed patta, gist and adangal receipts with
respect to the suit schedule properties and without considering patta, chitta and
adangal which are best documents to show and prove the possession and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and without considering the documents
placed by the plaintiff, the trial Court has dismissed the application. The learned
Senior Counsel for the respondent, in support of his contentions, relied upon the
judgment of this Court in G.Selvamani and four others v. The District Revenue
Officers – cum – Revisional Authority, reported in 1998-I-L.W. 101, to show that
the best evidence to establish the cultivation is the adangal extract. The learned
Senior Counsel for the respondent would further submit that the appellate Court
has considered the documents placed before the Trial Court and found that a
prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff and balance of convenience
also in favour of the plaintiff and if the injunction is not granted, it would cause
serious prejudice and hardship to the plaintiff and therefore, reversed the order of
the Trial Court and there is no reason to interfere with the order of the lower
appellate Court.
10. This Court given its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and
also perused the entire materials available on record.
11. The core issue involved in the instant petition is with regard to grant of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
temporary injunction. At the outset, it is relevant to refer Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
CPC, which reads hereunder:
“Order XXXIX – Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders
“Rule 1 CPC : Cases in which temporary injunction may be
granted.- Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-
(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being
wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully
sold in execution of a decree, or
(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose
of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors.
(c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or
otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in
dispute in the suit,
the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such
act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing
the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the
property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury
to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the
Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
Rule 2 CPC: Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance
of breach.-
(1) in any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a
breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation
is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the
commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply
to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from
committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any
breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same
contract or relating to the same property or right.
(2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms
as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving
security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
12. The cardinal principles for grant of temporary injunction are as
follows.-
(1) Satisfaction that there is a “prima facie case” by itself is not
sufficient to grant injunction.
(2) The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the
Court would result in “Irreparable injury” to the party seeking
relief and that there is no other remedy available to the party
except one to grant injunction. Irreparable injury means only
that the injury must be a material one namely, one that cannot
be adequately compensated by way of damages.
(3) “The Balance of Convenience” must be in favour of granting
injunction.
13. In Interlocutory Proceedings, the Court can express only its tentative
view, which does not cause any prejudice to the concerned party [Jai Kishan v.
Britonatics (1987) Supp SCC 72].
14. At the stage of deciding the application for temporary injunction, the
Court is not required to go into the merits of the case in detail. What the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
has to examine is : (1) the plaintiff has a prima facie case to go for trial; (ii) the
protection is necessary from that specifies of injuries known as irreparable before
his legal right can be established; and (iii) that the mischief of inconvenience
likely to arise from withholding injunction will be greater than what is likely to
arise from granting it. The issuance of an order of injunction is absolutely a
discretionary and equitable relief. In a given set of circumstances, injunction may
be given to protect the possession of the owner or a person in lawful possession.
15. A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in
Skyline Educational Institute (Pvt) Ltd. v. SL Vaswani, [AIR 2010 SC 3221] has
held that once the Court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse
to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based
upon objective consideration of the material placed before the Court and is
supported by cogent reasons, the Appellate Court will be loath to interfere simply
because on a de novo consideration of the matter it is possible for the Appellate
Court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of
convenience, irreparable injury and equity.
16. Keeping in mind the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
the case on hand the Trial Court, on a proper consideration of the documents
relied upon by the plaintiff in Exs.P1 to P9 and also the oral evidence adduced on
behalf of the defendants in RW1 to RW3, has come to a conclusion that the
plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience also not
in her favour and accordingly dismissed the application, which does not warrants
any interference. However, the lower Appellate Court, without rendering proper
reasoning, has simply interfered with the order of the Trial Court in the absence of
any wrong in recording the prima facie satisfaction or the Trial Court has
erroneously reached the finding or conclusion on the facts established. In the light
of the reasons assigned above, the order of the lower Appellate Court warrants
interference and the same is liable to be set aside.
17. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed and the order
dated 21.07.2025 made in CMA.No.1 / 2025 on the file of the Sub Court at
Mannargudi is set aside, confirming the order dated 24.01.2025 made in
I.A.No.214/2023 in O.S.No.65 of 2023, on the file of the District Munsif cum \
Judicial Magistrate, at Needamangalam. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
07.10.2025
Intex : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Jvm
To
1.The Sub-Court,
Mannarkudi.
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Jvm
2.District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Needamangalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
07.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/10/2025 11:28:13 am )
