SANTHA Vs. VASU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of law has been mooted in this appeal, whether S.41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') would prevent a court from granting injunction in respect of proceedings pending in the same court. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the decision in Raghavan v. Sankaran ( 1992 (2) KLT 959 )rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court is not correct law.

(2.) Appellant is the third defendant in a suit for partition instituted by her two brothers inlaw. The impugned order is a temporary injunction which restrains the appellant from proceeding with an earlier suit filed by her (O.S. No. 104/86) in the same court. More facts are these:

(3.) Suit properties belonged to the father inlaw of the appellant (Chami by name) who died in 1978. Chami was survived by his widow and four children. Appellant is the widow of Sahadevan, one of the sons of Chami. (Sahadevan died in 1984). Appellant filed O.S. No. 104/86 in the Sub Court, Palakkad against her mother inlaw for partition of the present suit property. In the said suit present plaintiffs were not parties, as the appellant then contended that there was an oral partition in the family in 1969 in which the suit property was allotted to the share of two sons of Chami (Chandran and Sahadevan) and that the said Chandran (who is second defendant in the present suit) had sold his half right in favour of Sahadevan in 1972. A preliminary decree has been passed by the court in the said suit declaring the right claimed by the appellant.