BHAGWAT PRASAD Vs. JITENDRA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an F.A.F.O. against the judgment and order dated 22 -9 -1989 granting temporary injunction in a suit filed by the plaintiff respondents against the defendant appellant alleging that the plaintiffs were owners and their names were mutated in place of one Ram Krishna the recorded tenure holder, and that the plaintiffs have no rights. The suit was contested by the defendants denying the plaint allegations and alleging that" the plaintiff had obtained a will from the owner Ram Krishna on 1 -3 -1988 and the application for temporary injunction was filed on the ground that the plaintiffs and their co -sharers were in possession over the land in dispute which contained trees also. Consequently the temporary injunction was granted by the court below.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant urged that there was no evidence filed by the plaintiffs to prove their possession and prima facie title and the court below has not recorded any finding of possession in favour of the plaintiffs, consequently the temporary injunction cannot be granted.

(3.) THE temporary injunctions are granted under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also under the inherent provisions of Section 151 of the Code. The power to grant temporary injunction is discretionary to be exercised on sound judicial principles. Broadly speaking the object of granting temporary injunctions is to maintain status quo while parties are litigating for their title. But at the same time it is not to be lightly granted. The prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss are the principles to be borne in mind in case injunction is not granted. In respect of prima facie case the court has to satisfy that there is a fair and substantial question to be decided. It is better to refer to an observation of Turner, L.J. in Walker v. Jones, 1965 LR (PC) 50, is as follows: - -