HAFIZ MOHD. ISHAQ Vs. JUMMAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal against an order refusing an ad-interim injunction.

(2.) Late Abdul Samad, father of defendant-respondents no. 2 to 6 and husband of defendant-respondent no. 1 filed Original Suit No. 593 of 1961 against Abdul Rahim, defendant-respondent no. 7 in the Court of Munsif, Jhansi for ejectment and arrears of rent on ground of default. Fie described the house by No. 56 as also by boundaries. Suit was residented by defendant-respondent no. 7 who inter alia denied title of Abdul Samad. Ultimately suit was decreed on 24th April, 1963. We are not concerned with decree for ejectment. It is not disputed that Execution Case No. 173 of 1970 for ejectment of defendant-respondent no. 7 from the house is still pending. It is also not disputed that after the death of Abdul Samad his widow, sons and daughters are pursuing the execution. It appears that dispute arose about the boundaries of the house. Plaintiff-appellant filed objections under order 21, Rule 99 C.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Case No. 48 of 1972. On 17th Nov., 1973 this objection was dismissed as not maintainable. Plaintiff-appellant filed Original Suit No. 42 of 1975 against the heirs of Abdul Samad and Abdul Rahman under Order 21, Rule 103, C.P.C. But the same was dismissed in default of parties on 1st Feb., 1977. Application for amendment of boundaries in the afore-mentioned ejectment suit was filed on 16th Sept., 1980 and was dismissed on 4th Dec., 1980. Civil Revision No. 39 of 1982 was preferred against the aforesaid order of dismissal. But on 8th July, 1983 the revision was dismissed with the reasons that amendment sought could not help the decree holder. On 12th Sept., 1983 another application for amendment of boundaries was filed and it was dismissed on 3rd May, 1986. Against that order Civil Revision No. 163 of 1986 was filed and was allowed on 12th Aug., 1987. Thus the boundaries were amended. Then plaintiff appellant filed suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of House No. 56. Me further prayed for permanent injunction restraining defendant-respondents No. 1 to 6 from executing aforesaid decree of 1963. Plaintiff-appellant rested his title on patta alleged to have been executed by the Zamindar Smt. Shakooran Begum on 14th April, 1968 and asserted that he got the house in dispute constructed. He attacked title of Abdul Samad and asserted his own possession over the house. He complained that by execution of aforementioned decree defendant-respondents no. 1 to 6 intend to susurp his house. He further alleged collusion between Abdul Samad and after him his heirs and Abdul Rahim.

(3.) With plaint plaintiff-appellant presented application for ad-interim injunction restraining defendant-respondent no. 1 to 6 from executing aforesaid decree. Grounds urged by him were the same as alleged in the plaint.