ASHA RANI Vs. SWAMI KESHWANAND PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This Civil Revision is directed against the order of the Addition Senior Civil Judge, Delhi dated 4/04/2001 thereby disposing of a Civil Misc. Appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the learned trial court dated 4.11.2000 disposing of an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC moved by the present petitioner. The trial court had allowed the application and by means of an interim injunction restrained the defendant/respondent from interfering her peaceful possession over the first floor of the suit property and at the same time directing the plaintiff-petitioner herein to open the temple to public from 4.00 AM to 12.00 Noon and 4.00 PM to 10.00 PM, also.giving a direction to the defendant-respondent to give at least one week's notice to the plaintiff-petitioner while arranging the bhandara on the Second Floor. The First Appellate Court has allowed the appeal of the respondent and dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

(2.) . Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC mainly on the ground that the appellate court was not justified in dismissing the application as their exist a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and balance of convenience also lies in her favour entitling her to an interim injunction. In this connection, it is pointed out that the petitioner is the wife of Padam Kishan who is the adopted son of Smt.Ishwari Devi, the original owner of the suit property. Smt. Ishwari Devi had performed the marriage of the petitioner's husband who in turn discharged all the duties and obligations of a son even at the time of death of Smt.Ishwari Devi. Besides her husband is an attorney appointed by respondent No.l. She alongwith her husband had been in continuous possession of the suit premises for a long period. As against this, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the suit premises. She never resided in the suit premises and in fact she is a resident of a different premises bearing No.328, Bagh Kare Khan, as is evident from several public documents. It is denied and her husband is the adopted son of Smt.Ishwari Devi. On the other hand, it was pleaded that Smt.Ishwari Devi had died issueless and had executed a gift of the property in question in favour of Param Hans Swami Param Gyanand Ji Purl, who was the Guru of the respondent No.1, who became owner of the property. There was litigation between the parties as also one Sita Devi claiming to be the sister of Smt.Ishwari Devi filed a petition for grant of letters of administration and obtained one in respect of the suit property. However, during revocation proceedings of the said letters of administration, certain amicable settlement was reached and later the petitioner's husband was appointed as an attorney to manage the affairs of the suit property, a part of which house is used as a temple. It is submitted that the learned appellate court was Justified in allowing the appeal and dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

(3.) . This Court, on a consideration of the matter, is of the view that the appellate court has more fully considered the facts, circumstances and the material obtaining on record in order to reach the conclusion that the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the suit property and that her present occupation of the suit property if at all it was there it is under her husband Padam Kishan who was occupying the suit property with permission of respondent no.1 on the strength of power of attorney. The Court also held that the petitioner failed to prove that she has personal interest in the matter. In the opinion of this Court also, this finding Is based on correct appreciation of the material brought on record and cannot be faltered as illegal or perverse. It is important to note here that the petitioner is not claiming any Independent right in the suit property and whatever right is claimed is through her husband who has not chosen to come forward to file a suit. The right of injunction is a personal right under Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief Act and a person who has no personal interest is not entitled to litigate as a proxy for the one who has a personal interest. Such a person cannot be allowed to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of the Court. The question whether the petitioner's husband is an adopted son of Smt.Ishwari Devi and is entitled to succeed her estate or that he became the owner of the suit premises by means of a sale deed stated to have been executed by respondent No.1 subsequently or the respondent No.1 is entitled to the suit property having succeeded the same in the capacity of Chela of Param Hans Swami Param Gyanand Ji Purl are the questions which may have to be answered on the basis of the evidence and material produced by the parties during the course of full dress trial. Besides, the effect of earlier proceeding including the probate proceedings and settlement etc arrived at between the parties in those proceedings will also have to be looked into. Thus having considered the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the First Appellate Court was fully Justified in accepting the appeal and setting aside the order of the trial court and dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. This revision petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.