S.Ranjani v. Javadhu Hill Teak Agri And Horticultural Farms Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Thirtieth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR CMP.No.19212 of 2019 in AS.No.641 of 2019 S.RANJANI [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 JAVADHU HILL TEAK AGRI AND [ RESPONDENTS ] HORTICULTURAL FARMS PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.10, 11, DR.RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, ARUMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 106, NOW AT NO.64, MADEL ADMENT ROAD, CIT NAGAR, NANDANAM, CHENNAI 600 035.

2 DR.E.KRISHNAN, DIRECTOR 3 SELVI SUGANTHI VENU, DIRECTOR 4 DHANALAKSHMI SHANMUGAM, W/O SHANMUGAM, DIRECTOR, 5 M.SELVARAJAN, DIRECTOR RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 ARE DIRECTORS, JAVADHU HILL TEAK AGRI AND HORTICULTURAL FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.364, MODEL ADMENT ROAD, C.I.T.NAGAR, NANDANAM, CHENNAI 600 035 Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased To grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents or their men and agents from alienating and interfering with the petitoners possession and enjoyment of the properties which is the subject

matter of the suit in OS NO.28 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Vellore at Tirupattur (in CMP.No.19212 of 2019) pending disposal of the AS.No.641 of 2019. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES XEROX COPY ATTACHED Order : This petition coming on this day for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.G.VINODHKUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant/Petitioner and of M/S.S.T.BHARATH GOWTHAM, Advocate for the Respondents, the court made the following order:- (1) The petitioner/appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance. Though the Lower Court refused to grant specific performance, it granted alternative relief of recovery of money alleged to have been paid as advance under the alleged Agreement of Sale.

(2) The present petition seeking injunction is to restrain the respondents/defendants from alienating or interfering with the petitioner/appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property which is the subject matter of the suit in OS.No.28/2012.

(3) There is no finding by the Lower Court regarding possession of the petitioner/plaintiff pursuant to the Agreement. When the decree for specific performance is refused, the petitioner/appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to seek injunction to protect his possession.

(4) An Agreement of Sale is not a document conveying right in immovable property. As regards injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the property, the petitioner/appellant/plaintiff is protected by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. Any alienation will be subject to the outcome of this appeal.

(5) Therefore, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

(6) Post after eight weeks.

-sd/- 30/11/2021 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. ) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VELLORE AT TIRUPATTUR.

C.C. to MR.G.VINODHKUMAR, Advocate SR.NO.6953/2021 Order in CMP.No.19212 of 2019 in AS.No.641 of 2019 Date :30/11/2021 From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Interim Orders in this format PA (07/12/2021)