Madras HC Upholds Interim Restraint On Buyer Selling Disputed 5-Ground Vacant Plot, Finding Plaintiff Has Prima Facie Title

The plaintiff in O.S.No.1085 of 2024 sought a declaration challenging the defendants’ claim to a vacant five-ground property and obtained an interim injunction restraining alienation.

The plaintiff claimed title to the property, stated that he had settled two grounds each on his brothers in 2013 and retained one ground, and asserted that the original title documents remained with him.

The revision petitioner, the second defendant, contended that the plaintiff had conveyed the property to Shankar Mohan and that the defendants later acquired it; he also argued that the plaintiff had not challenged the earlier conveyance.

The Trial Court granted an injunction, and the Subordinate Judge, Alandur, confirmed it in CMA.No.23 of 2021.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227.

He also relied on additional documents that had been excluded in the appeal; the orders rejecting the applications to adduce those documents were not independently challenged.

Under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, interim injunctive relief requires consideration of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss or hardship.

For vacant land, possession may follow title where title is established prima facie.

In exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227, the Court assessed the challenged orders on the material that had been before the courts below; it declined to consider additional evidence where the orders refusing its admission had not been independently challenged.

No precedent was cited.

The Court found no basis to disturb the concurrent assessment of the injunction application.

The courts below had considered the three requirements for interim relief and found them satisfied.

They had also found the petitioner’s claim to be a bona fide purchaser not prima facie acceptable, noting that the revenue-record mutation in his favour occurred after the injunction was granted and that his vendor had remained ex parte.

Given the plaintiff’s prima facie title claim and the property’s status as vacant land, possession could follow title.

The Court confined its review to the evidence admitted below because the petitioner had not independently challenged the refusal to admit his additional documents.

It directed the Trial Court to endeavour to dispose of O.S.No.1085 of 2024 within six months of receiving the order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected civil miscellaneous petitions were closed.