RAMALAH Vs. GOWDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has come before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge to consider the following questions of law: 1. Whether the defendants can file an application seeking temporary injunction against the plaintiffs in a suit filed by the plaintiffs? and

(2.) Whether the decision of this Court in SUGANDA BAI v. SULU BAI AND ORS. [1975(1) KLJ 96] 1975(1) KLJ 96 places any restriction in the matter of grant of temporary injunction in favour of defendants in a suit filed by the plaintiffs? 2. Petitioners were defendants and the respondents were plaintiffs in the trial Court. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to by their status in the Court below.

(3.) The brief facts, leading to this reference are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No. 19 of 1980 on the file of the Civil Judge at Chikkaballapur, claiming partition and separate possession of their two-thirds share in the plaint schedule properties which are alleged to be the Joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. In the said suit, the defendants filed an interlocutory application (I.A.V), seeking temporary injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with their possession of certain items of the plaint schedule properties, which according to the defendants had fallen to their share in an earlier partition of the family properties in the year 1953 and that they were in exclusive possession of the same since then. It is further pleaded that taking advantage of the suit the plaintiffs were attempting to interfere with their (defendants) possession and enjoyment of the said properties. 3.1. The plaintiffs contested the said application, contending, inter alia, that they were entitled to joint enjoyment with the defendants of the properties mentioned in the schedule to the application (I.A.V), as the same was still undivided and hence the defendants are not entitled to the relief claimed by them in the application. 3.2. On consideration of the pleadings and other material on record, the learned trial Judge allowed the defendant's application and granted the temporary injunction in their favour. 3.3. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6 of 1981 on the file of the District Judge at Kolar. By his order dated 15-10-1984 the learned District Judge, allowed the plaintiff's appeal and set aside the order on I.A.V. made by the trial Court on the ground that the cause of action alleged in the defendant's application (I.A.V) was different from the original cause of action on which the plaintiffs had filed the suit. In reaching the said conclusion the Appellate Court placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Suganda Bai v. Salu Bai & ors.. It is the validity of that order that is challenged in this revision petition.