MAHENDRA MAGRURAM GUPTA Vs. RAJDAI SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The short facts necessary for our purpose are that three brothers namely, Mr. Magruram Chotanki Gupta, Mr. Deepnarayan Chotanki Gupta and Mr. Baburam Chotanki Gupta were co-tenants of the suit property. The appellants are descendants of Mr. Magruram Chotanki Gupta while respondent no. 1 is the descendant of Mr. Deepnarayan Chotanki Gupta. The appellants' case is that by a notarised affidavit dtd. 22/2/1990, Mr. Deepnarayan Chotanki Gupta (respondent no. 1's predecessor) transferred his rights in the tenanted premises to Mr. Magruram Chotanki Gupta, i.e., their predecessor-in-interest. Subsequently, after Mr. Deepnarayan's death, his widow Smt. Antadevi signed a declaration dtd. 18/4/1998 relinquishing her rights in the suit property in favour of appellant no. 1.

(3.) Relying on these documents, the appellants/ plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, in which their prayer for interim relief of temporary injunction came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on 21/12/2012. In appeal against this order, the High Court by the order impugned herein virtually dismissed the suit. Before adverting to the reasoning adopted by the High Court for virtually dismissing the suit while considering an application for injunction, we will first reproduce the relevant portion of the prayers in the suit1 filed by the appellants before the Bombay City Civil Court;