RUKMANI DEVI ANINDALE TRUST Vs. S EASWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of interlocutory applications filed by the appellant for an injunction, and by the respondent for vacating the interim injunction. The appellant is indisputably the owner of the property in question. The appellant-trust appointed the respondent as an agent for taking care of its properties under a letter dated 18.10.1984 marked as Ex.P-1 in the case. The letter reads as follows:

(2.) EVEN the facts stated above are sufficient to show that the trial court is in error in vacating the interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession of the appellant. Whatever possession, the respondent had, prior to the termination of agency, was only on behalf of the appellant, and it cannot be contended by the respondent that he was in exclusive possession, so as to exclude even the owner thereof, who is the principal. EVEN assuming that the respondent is entitled to be reimbursed for the amount spent by him, for reclaiming or improving the suit property or for planting the trees, the only course open to him is, to make claims against the appellant and pray for a decree with regard to the same. So far the respondent has not filed any counter claim or written statement in the suit. EVEN assuming that the respondent is entitled to huge amount from the plaintiff, by way of compensation, the plaintiff cannot be prevented from appointing its own agency to take care of the property. It is not the case of the respondent that the plaintiff will not be in a position to pay the amount which may be claimed by the respondent, and therefore, the plaintiff should not be allowed to reimburse himself from and out of the income from the suit property.

(3.) IN view of the clear ruling of the Supreme Court,:he order of the court below deserves to be set aside in so far as it is against the appellant. Both the appeals are allowed. There will be an order of injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession of the appellant of the suit property till the disposal of the suit. There will be no order as to costs.