[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Ramayal vs V.K.Ramasamy on 23 February, 2026
2026:MHC:745
CRP No. 603 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 603 of 2026 and
CMP No.3361 of 2026
1. Ramayal, W/o.Chenniyappa gounder,
Door No.3/203, Onnakaradu,
Mettukadu, Karattupalayam Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
2. Thandavamoorthy,
S/o.Chenniyappa Gounder,
1/46-B, Sellappampalayam,
Kovai to Sathy Main Road,
Annur Taluk, Coimbatore District.
3. Natarajan, S/o.Avinasiyappan,
160, Palaniappa Nagar,
Suramangalam, Salem District.
4. Subramaniam, S/o.Karuppanna Gounder,
441, Thavayatharar Thottam,
Onnakaradu, Mettukadu,
Karattupalayam Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
5. Arulprakash, S/o.Thirumurthy,
11/172, Onnakaradu, Mettukadu,
Karattupalayam Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
6. Varadharajan, S/o.Ramalingam Pillai,
11/171, Onnakaradu,
Mettukadu, Karattupalayam Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
..Petitioner(s)
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
CRP No. 603 of 2026
Vs
1. V.K.Ramasamy, S/o.Komarasamy gounder,
VKR Thottam, Onnakaradu,
Mettukadu, Karattupalayam Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
2. Dhanabakkiam,, W/o.V.K.Ramasamy,
Onnakaradu, VKR Thottam,
Mettukadu, Karattupalayam Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
3. Divya Dhanabakiyam, W/o.Anbu Chezhian,
Rep. by Power Agent V.K.Ramasamy,
Onnakaradu, VKR Thottam,
Mettukadu, Karattupalayam Village,
Nambiyur Taluk, Erode District.
Now residing at 4-Hubbell Road,
Ontario, Brampton -L6Y2 A5,
Toranto, Canada.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the fair and decretal Order dated 10.09.2025 made in
CMA.No.2 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode
District, reversing the fair and decretal order dated 05.08.2023 made in
IA.No.03 of 2022 in OS.No.115 of 2022 on the file of District Munsif Court,
Gobichettipalayam, by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. N.Manoharan
For Respondent(s): Mr. Muthuchharan Sundresh
For Caveators/ R1 To R3
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
CRP No. 603 of 2026
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed
by the first appellate Court, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents 1 to 3/
defendants and consequently dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/
plaintiffs in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.115 of 2022, seeking temporary
mandatory injunction to restore the alleged cart track that runs through the suit
property.
2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the said suit. According to
them, the first plaintiff is owner of the land to an extent of 1.18 acres in
resurvey No.200/2 in Karattupalayam B Village. The second petitioner is son
of the first plaintiff. The 3rd plaintiff owns 2.14 ¼ acres in resurvey
No.199/2B, 4A. The 4th plaintiff is the owner of the land with an extent of 50
cents in resurvey No.199/4. The 5th plaintiff is the owner of land to an extent of
5.95 ½ acres in resurvey No.197/4. The 6 th plaintiff is the owner of land with
an extent of 3 acres in resurvey No.197/4.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that there is a cart tract running
through the suit property more fully described in plaint schedule with various
survey numbers and the petitioners and other adjacent owners have been using
the cart track in the suit property as access to their lands. It is further stated that
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
the cart track has been given a separate sub division number in some places and
separate sub division numbers have not been given in some other places.
Taking advantage of the same, the respondents made an attempt to obliterate
the suit cart track and annex the same with their property. Therefore, the
petitioners were constrained to file a suit for bare injunction restraining the
defendants from committing trespass into the suit property and to interfere with
the petitioners’ right of carrying vehicles and cattle through the said cart track.
The suit has been filed by the petitioners on their behalf and also on behalf of
general public using the suit cart track.
4. The suit was filed by the petitioners on 28.02.2022 and thereafter, the
instant application has been filed by them on 28.09.2022 (as seen from the
affidavit filed in support of the petition) seeking temporary mandatory
injunction directing the respondents to restore the suit cart track to its original
position. It was the specific case of the petitioners in the said application that
pending suit, the respondents obliterated the suit cart track and planted coconut
saplings.
5. The said interlocutory application filed by the petitioners seeking
temporary mandatory injunction was resisted by the respondents by denying the
existence of the suit cart track, as claimed by the petitioners. It was also stated
by the respondents that neither the petitioners nor the owners of adjacent lands
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
could have ever used the non existent suit cart track. It was also stated by the
respondents that the 2nd respondent is owner of the property situated in resurvey
No.204, 202/2, 3 and 4. The 1st respondent is owner of the property situated in
resurvey No.202/1. The 3rd respondent is owner of the land situated in resurvey
No.188/1, 2 and 199/4C. It was the specific case of the respondents that they
had put up wire fence around their patta lands and the suit cart track was never
in existence in the patta land of the respondents. It was also stated that there
was a competition between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent in purchasing
the land situated in resurvey No.188/1, 2 and 199/4C and the 3 rd respondent
succeeded in purchasing the suit lands and aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners have come up with this vexatious suit.
6. The trial court conducted enquiry in the interlocutory application
seeking temporary mandatory injunction and allowed the same by directing the
respondents to restore the cart track. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents
filed an appeal in CMA No.2 of 2023 before the regular first appellate court.
The learned first appellate Judge reversed the findings of the trial court and
allowed the appeal. As a consequence, the petition for temporary mandatory
injunction was dismissed by the first appellate court with a direction to the Trial
court to dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as possible. Challenging the
said order, the petitioners/plaintiffs have come before this court by way of this
revision.
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the existence of
suit cart track had been established by the report and plan filed by the Advocate
Commissioner and the first appellate court had committed an error in
overlooking the Advocate Commissioner’s Report and Plan and dismissing the
petition seeking temporary mandatory injunction. The learned counsel further
submitted that in the title documents of the petitioners, there is a reference about
the mamool cart track (usual cart track) and the same only refers to the suit cart
track. Therefore, according to him, there is a strong prima facie case in favour
of the petitioners to grant an order of temporary mandatory injunction. He also
submitted that the respondents taking advantage of the orders passed in
Crl.O.P.No.5243/2022, obliterated the cart track and fenced the property
belonging to them and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to restoration of the
cart track, pending suit. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment
of the Apex Court in Dorab cawasji warden vs. Coomi sorab warden and
others reported in (1990) 2 Supreme Court cases 117.
8. From the pleadings of the petitioners in the plaint, it is clear that the
petitioners are not owners of the land, in which the suit cart track is allegedly in
existence. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners in their affidavit filed in
support of the petition seeking temporary mandatory injunction, had stated that
the respondents/defendants obtained an order from the High Court behind their
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
back and demolished (obliterated) the suit cart track existed in their lands and
put up fence around their properties. Therefore, it is clear that the disputed suit
cart track allegedly located in the property of the respondents and the petitioners
are only claiming right to use the cart track allegedly in existence in the land
belonged to the respondents. In other words, the petitioner are not owners of
the land, in which the alleged suit cart track is in existence, but they are only
claiming easementary right by long usage. The same can be gathered from their
own pleadings in the plaint as well as in the affidavit filed by them in support of
the petition seeking temporary mandatory injunction. The respondents in their
counter, denied the very existence of the suit cart track. In such circumstances,
the suit for bare injunction filed by the petitioners, prima facie appears to be not
maintainable in the absence of prayer for declaration of petitioners’ easementary
right over the suit cart track. The averments found in the plaint would make it
clear that the petitioners claimed only easementary right of access over the suit
cart track. In such circumstances, the suit for bare injunction restraining the
real owners of the property, namely the respondents from interfering with the
petitioners’ alleged right of access, without prayer for declaration of
easementary right, appears to be not maintainable in the prima facie view of this
court.
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
9. It is settled law that temporary mandatory injunction is an
extraordinary remedy, which can be granted only in cases, where the petitioners
establish a very strong prima facie case coupled with balance of convenience
and irreparable injury. In the case on hand, for the reasons mentioned above,
this court feels that the petitioners’ chances of succeeding in the case appears to
be weak, in the absence of prayer for declaration. In this regard, it is pertinent
to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case law cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioners in Dorab cawasji warden vs. Coomi sorab
warden and others reported in (1990) 2 Supreme Court cases 117. The
relevant observation reads as follows.
“ 16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus
granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non
contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final
hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of
those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which
was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the
granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to
establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable
harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not
granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally
cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain
guidelines. Generally stated these guidelines are:
(1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a
higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a
prohibitory injunction.
(2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which
normally cannot be compensated in terms of money.
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
(3) The balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking
such relief. ”
10. Therefore, in order to succeed in an application seeking temporary
mandatory injunction, the petitioners must establish a strong case for trial,
which shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case, that is normally
required for a prohibitory injunction. In the case on hand, the petitioners
claimed that there was a cart track in the property belonging to the respondents
and the same was obliterated by them, pending suit. Whether the suit cart track
was really in existence, whether the petitioners had right to use the same and
whether it was obliterated by the respondent pending suit are all question of
facts, which require evidence. Much reliance was placed by the petitioners on
the report and plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner. As rightly pointed out
by the first appellate court, the Advocate Commissioner in his report clearly
found that there was no cart track available on ground between point ‘M’ and
point ‘L’, in his plan. Whether there was a cart track between the point ‘M’ to
‘L’ and whether the petitioners are entitled to use the same to have access to
their lands are all matters to be decided at the time of final disposal and without
proper trial, a temporary mandatory injunction cannot be issued against the
respondents to lay cart track in the suit property between point ‘L’ to point ‘M’.
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
11. As mentioned earlier, the petitioners have not prayed for declaration
of easementary right and they simply filed a suit for bare injunction. The
maintainability of the said suit prayer is very much doubtful. In such
circumstances, the Trial Court ought not have granted temporary mandatory
injunction directing the respondents to restore the alleged suit cart track to its
original position. In the judgment in Dorab cawasji warden vs. Coomi sorab
warden and others reported in (1990) 2 Supreme Court cases 117 cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that
interlocutory mandatory injunction can be granted only to restore the status quo
of the last non contested status which preceded the pending controversy. In the
case on hand, there is a serious dispute with regard to the existence of the suit
cart track in the lands belonging to the respondents. In the absence of clarity
about the uncontested statusquo, the Trial Court ought not to have issued a
temporary mandatory injunction directing the respondents to restore the cart
track, as if the same was in existence, prior to the filing of the suit. In the facts
and circumstances of the case, it is better to direct the Trial Court to dispose of
the suit as expeditiously as possible, so as to give quietus to the entire
controversy. The first appellate court rightly reversed the order passed by the
Trial Court and directed the same to dispose of the suit in an expeditious
manner. I do not find any serious irregularity or illegality in the said order
passed by the first appellate court.
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
12. Accordingly, this civil revision petition stands dismissed. It is made
clear that any observation made by this court on the suit claim is only a prima
facie opinion for the disposal of interlocutory petition and the trial court shall
dispose off the suit on its own merits, without being influenced by anything said
in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
23-02-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes
MST
To
1. The Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam,
Erode District.
2. The District Munsif,
Gobichettipalayam.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
MST
23-02-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/02/2026 07:23:41 pm )
