9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Grant of ad interim injunction under Order 39, Rule 3, C.P. Code. 2. Urgency in passing an interim order. 3. Consideration of defense in petition of objection against injunction. 4. Protection of co-sharer of an undivided family dwelling house under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to a revision against the order passed in a suit for injunction involving disputed property owned by four brothers. The plaintiffs sought protection under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act to restrain the lessee from interfering with their possession. The Court of Appeal granted ad interim injunction, which was challenged in the revision. The defendant argued that the Court must follow Order 39, Rule 3, C.P. Code for granting injunction, but the Court emphasized the legislative intent behind the provision, stating that recording reasons is essential to prevent prejudice. As the defendant had an opportunity to present objections, the Court rejected the argument of mechanical compliance with Rule 3. 2. The defendant contended that there was no urgency for the interim order, but the Court disagreed, emphasizing the need to protect the privacy of undivided family members from external interference. The urgency was justified based on the potential violation of the family's privacy rights by the defendant, a stranger seeking possession. 3. Regarding the consideration of the defense in the petition of objection against the injunction, the defendant argued against the Court looking into the defense disclosed in the objection. However, the Court distinguished the case cited by the defendant, highlighting that the defendant had contested the proceedings and objections, justifying the ad interim injunction based on available materials and the prima facie evidence from the lease deeds. 4. The judgment extensively discussed the protection of co-sharers of an undivided family dwelling house under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act. It cited precedents emphasizing that a stranger-purchaser is not entitled to joint possession before partition and can be restrained by injunction. The Court affirmed the entitlement of co-sharers to seek protection under Section 44 and highlighted the consequences of denying such protection, including irreparable injury to other family members. The Court upheld the ad interim injunction, considering the circumstances and the defendant's prior possession under a monthly tenancy. In conclusion, the Court confirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal below, dismissing the revision application and emphasizing that the order should not prejudice the trial court's independent findings.
|
