2008 (3) TMI 740 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Injunction on Schedule A Property
2. Injunction on Schedule B Property
3. Possession and Padlocking of Flat No. 201
4. Preliminary Decree and Revision Application
5. Legal Principles on Co-ownership and Injunction

Summary:

1. Injunction on Schedule A Property:
The plaintiffs filed an application for an injunction to restrain the respondents from handing over the allotted flats and from selling any flats in Schedule A property. It was averred that the plaintiffs and defendants were occupying undivided property and had specific undivided shares.

2. Injunction on Schedule B Property:
On 11.04.2005, the plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from transferring or letting out any portion of Schedule B property. An order of injunction was initially issued but later refused. The appeal against this refusal was dismissed for default but later restored.

3. Possession and Padlocking of Flat No. 201:
The appellants allegedly padlocked Flat No. 201, which was in the first respondent's possession. The first respondent filed an application stating obstruction by the plaintiffs. The Civil Judge directed the removal of the padlock and restrained the plaintiffs from obstructing the first respondent's peaceful enjoyment of the flat.

4. Preliminary Decree and Revision Application:
A preliminary decree was passed in the suit. The appellants' revision application against the order dated 21.11.2006 was dismissed by the High Court, which held that the Trial Court's prima facie finding on possession justified the interim mandatory injunction.

5. Legal Principles on Co-ownership and Injunction:
The Supreme Court upheld the principle that possession of one co-owner is possession of all, but noted that separate possession by mutual adjustment should be respected. The Court affirmed that injunctions could be granted u/s 151 CPC if not covered by Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. The Court rejected the appellants' reliance on cases concerning adverse possession and ouster, emphasizing that no co-sharer should act in breach of mutual agreements or take the law into their own hands.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no illegality in the Civil Judge's order directing the removal of the padlock and upheld the High Court's dismissal of the revision application. The appeal was dismissed with costs, reinforcing the principle that no party should benefit from their own wrong.