High Court · 2025

O.A. No.679 of 2025inC.S. No.147 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 07.10.2025CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABALO.A. No.679 of 2025inC.S. No.147 of 20251. N. Balajivenket S/o. Late R. Natarajan2. B. Vijayalakshmi Proprietrix of Anugraha Foundations…..ApplicantsVs.1. Bhuvaneswari UdayakumarW/o. Late Mr. D. Udayakumar2. Anitha D/o. Late D. Udayakumar3. Radhika D/o. Late Udayakumar4. Norton Granites & Properties (P) Ltd.,(A company registered under the Company Act, 1956)…. Respondents PRAYER: This application has been filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code Page No.1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.679 of 2025inC.S. No.147 of 2025and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents / defendants, his agents, servants, or any one claiming under them or on their behalf, from alienating or encumbering the Suit schedule property in any manner pending disposal of the main Suit.For Applicant:Dr. P. VasudevanFor Respondents:Mr. G. MohanakrishnanORDERThis application has been filed to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents / defendants, his agents, servants, or any one claiming under them or on their behalf, from alienating or encumbering the Suit schedule property in any manner pending disposal of the main Suit.2. The case of the applicants / Plaintiffs is that the applicants / Plaintiffs filed a Suit for recovery of money as against the respondents / Page No.2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.679 of 2025inC.S. No.147 of 2025defendants to the tune of Rs.2,17,50,000/- based on an affidavit-cum-understanding dated 01.10.2022. During pendency of the Suit, the respondents / defendants are taking all measures to sell the immovable properties. In fact, one Udaya Kumar, who was the Managing Director of the 4th defendant is liable to pay the loan amount. However, the other respondents being the Directors of the said Company have already signed in the affidavit-cum-understanding dated 01.10.2022. Now, the respondents/defendants are taking all measures to sell the immovable properties left by Udaya Kumar as well as owned by the fourth defendant/Private Limited Company. Therefore, the applicants filed this application to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from alienating or encumbering the Suit schedule property.3. The case of the respondents is that they denied the execution of alleged affidavit cum declaration. In the year 2020, the plaintiffs threatened Page No.3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.679 of 2025inC.S. No.147 of 2025late Udaya Kumar as well as family members and obtained signature on several blank papers, non judicial stamp papers, promissory note, cheque, etc., citing that the same are normal procedure for them. The said affidavit-cum-understanding dated 01.10.2022 was suddenly prepared by the petitioners/plaintiffs for the purpose of grabbing the property. There are several corrections in the affidavit-cum- understanding, but there is no countersign or acknowledgement by the parties and the said declaration has not been attested by any witnesses. Even as per the affidavit, the respondents have to pay the amount on or before 31.12.2022. But the plaintiffs have filed the Suit after three years before the limitation period. The averments in the affidavit are stoutly denied. The respondents are not taking any steps to sell the immovable property in Kilpauk since the same is the house in which they are residing. The said property is no way connected with the alleged commercial transaction between the applicants and late Udaya Kumar. There are no pleadings to fulfill the conditions under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Civil Page No.4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.679 of 2025inC.S. No.147 of 2025Procedure Code to grant interim injunction as against the respondents / defendants. Therefore, this application is liable to be dismissed.4. This Court heard both sides and perused records.5. In this case, the petitioners /plaintiffs have filed the main suit for the relief of recovery of money as against the respondents, based on the affidavit-cum-declaration dated 01.10.2022. The said execution of affidavit-cum-declaration has been denied by the respondents. Even, according to the affidavit, one Udaya Kumar, in between 2016 to 2018, had borrowed money in the capacity of Managing Director of M/s.Norton Granite and Properties Limited by executing promissory note and cheque from M/s.Anugraha Foundation Properties headed by Vijayalakshmi w/o. N.Balaji Venkat and the said Udaya Kumar in between 2016 and 2018 started making some payments towards interest and not able to pay towards the principal amount and Page No.5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.679 of 2025inC.S. No.147 of 2025thereafter some of the words typed were deleted. For the outstanding amount borrowed by Udaya Kumar, the executors, namely, Udaya Kumar, Anitha and Radhika ad executed the affidavit whereas all the parties mentioned in the affidavit have not signed in each and every page of the affidavit. Only two signatures were found in all the pages, that too in the last page, the signature was written over the seal. Therefore, the main document relied on by the applicants itself is under some suspicious circumstances. Therefore, it has to be proved through Trial.6. The applicants have not produced any original documents signed by Udaya Kumar and there is no mention about the date of borrowal of the amount. Already, the same applicants have filed another application in A. No.3110 of 2025 for attachment of the properties before judgment and the same was also dismissed, Since the main document relied on by the applicants itself has to be tested through trial and there is no prima facie case Page No.6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.679 of 2025inC.S. No.147 of 2025made out, it is not proper to grant interim injunction. There is no any specific prayer in the main Suit as against the Suit schedule properties. The main relief sought for in the Suit itself is permanent injunction as against the Suit properties from alienating or encumbering the Suit schedule property in any manner pending disposal of the main Suit. While so, without any documents and evidences, the main prayer cannot be decided in an interlocutory application. In order to make out the prima facie case, there are no any materials produced by the applicants. The balance of convenience is also not lying in favour of the applicants / Plaintiffs and no irreparable loss would be caused to the applicants by not granting interim injunction. Therefore, the applicants are not entitled to any relief and the application is liable to be dismissed.7. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. Page No.7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.679 of 2025inC.S. No.147 of 202507.10.2025mjsP.DHANABAL.,JmjsO.A. No.679 of 2025inC.S. No.147 of 2025Page No.8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis O.A. No.679 of 2025inC.S. No.147 of 202507.10.2025Page No.9 of 9