9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question of binding his legal representatives by injunction would not arise. But in a case where the plaintiff, who is seeking injunction dies, the same position will not hold good. The right of injunction does not die with the death of plaintiff. In the instant case, the plaintiff i.e. deceased-Usha Tiwari had sought injunction that the petitioners herein should not interfere in her possession over the property in dispute. A suit claiming injunction of this nature does not abate on death of the plaintiff. The cause of action would survive to his/her legal representatives, who come in possession of the said property - One thing is clear that if the respondent and his son succeed in proving before the trial court that petitioner No. 1 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dge, Jammu, whereby the application filed by the respondent for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased appellant/plaintiff has been allowed and the said respondent has been substituted as appellant/plaintiff. 2. Heard and considered. 3. It appears that deceased appellant-Usha Tiwari, who happened to be the mother of respondent as well as petitioner No. 1 filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of property bearing House No. 36 BB, 2nd Extension, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu against the petitioners herein before 2nd Additional Munsiff, Jammu. The said suit was filed by appellant-Usha Tiwari through her son and power of attorney holder, the respondent herein. In the suit, it was pleaded by the appellant/plaintiff that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the appellate court and defendants before the trial court have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that cause of action in a suit for injunction was personal to original plaintiff-Smt. Usha Tiwari, who happened to be the mother of petitioner No. 1 and the respondent and with her death, the cause of action does not survive in favour of the respondent. It has been further contended that in terms of the Will executed by Late Usha Tiwari, she had bequeathed the house situated at Gandhi Nagar, Jammu in favour of petitioner No. 1, who is in peaceful possession thereof, therefore, on this ground also, no cause of action survives in favour of the respondent. It has been further contended that in another suit between the parties relating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould survive to his/her legal representatives, who come in possession of the said property. 9. The respondent, the son of deceased-Usha Tiwari has claimed that petitioner No. 1 herein stands disinherited by the deceased-plaintiff. The question whether she was disinherited by deceased-plaintiff and it is only the respondent, who is entitled to remain in possession of the suit property, is a matter which would be decided during the trial of the case. Similarly the merits of the claim of the petitioners/defendants that the deceased had executed a Will in respect of the suit property in favour of her daughter-petitioner No. 1 and that the said Will was her last Will would also be decided during the trial of the case. In fact, son of respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
