R DILIP KUMAR Vs. S RAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) in the court-below under order 43, Rule l(r), CPC against the Order, dated 12-7-1991 passed by the xvi additional city civil judge, Bangalore city, Bangalore, in o.s. No. 348 of 1990 dismissing la. No. I filled by the appellant under order 39, rules 1 and 2, CPC for grant of temporary injunction.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.

(3.) the plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent and another defendant for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the eldest son of defendant-1 and the respondent is the second son of defendant-1 and plaintiff's brother. As the respondent has refused to effect partition in the joint family properties since they are standing in his name, the plaintiff has filed the suit. The appellant also filed I.A. No. I under order 39, rules 1 and 2, CPC read with Section 151, CPC praying for issue of an order of temporary injunction against the respondent restraining him from constructing any structures in the suit schedule properties or from alienating, mortgaging or causing any injury to the water pipe line leading to the plaintiffs house and to the electrical supply of the plaintiff's house, until the disposal of the suit. The said I.A. was resisted by the respondent on various grounds. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the learned additional city civil judge, Bangalore, dismissed the I.A. filed by the appellant for temporary injunction. Hence, this appeal.