WOLTER ANTONY HARRISON Vs. AGNUS HARRISON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein, who challenges Ext.P6 order dated 1.2.2018 dismissing petition for temporary injunction, is the husband who filed O.P.No.793/2017 before the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking declaration of title and consequential reliefs in respect of the petition schedule property and the buildings therein. The first respondent is his wife and respondents 2 and 3 are his major daughters.

(2.) On the date of institution of O.P. before Family Court, the petitioner obtained an order of ad-interim injunction in I.A. No.1317/2017, restraining all the respondents from alienating the petition schedule property measuring 10.081 cents and the building comprised in Survey Nos.713/1 and 713/2 of Elamkulam village. The order further restrained the respondents from leasing out the property to anybody or from dispossessing the petitioner from the building and property and also from interfering with his possession and enjoyment, till the disposal of the O.P. The second respondent on her behalf and as the Power of Attorney holder of the other two respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the petition for injunction and the lower court after perusing the materials on record and hearing the parties modified the ex-parte order of injunction limiting it only with respect to acts of alienation of the property. It was also clarified that the order would not in any way prevent the respondent No.2 from inducting the tenant under Ext.B9 lease agreement dated 22.3.2017 into the building. The impugned Ext.P6 order did not restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the property and the lower court has vacated the ad-interim order granted earlier, to that extent. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and seeks to set aside the same and claims an order restraining him from being dispossessed from the property. The respondents do not appear to be aggrieved by the impugned order and there is no challenge of the same in this proceedings.

(3.) The petition schedule property is presently held in the exclusive name of second respondent under Ext.A4 settlement deed executed by her mother and sister who are respondents 1 and 3 respectively. Third respondent acquired right over the property under a prior settlement deed, Ext.A3 executed by mother on 31.5.2006.