RAVI GANPATI SHENOY Vs. NEELA SHENOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Judge, IInd Co-op. Court at Bombay on 18-1-1991 in Case No. 473 of 1990 by which the learned Judge vacated the ad-interim order of injunction granted by the trial Court on 18-9-90.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal in brief are as under : The respondent No. 1 is a member of the Respondent No. 2 society holding the Flat No. 25 in the building of respondent 2 society at plot No. 321, Hill Hoad, Baodra, Bombay-400 050. The appellant is her husband. The Respondent No. 3 is her mother and, therefore, the mother-in-law of the Appellant.

(3.) THE plaint filed in the trial Court discloses that the relations between the appellant and the Respondent No. 1 that is to say between the husband and the wife are strained and are apparently beyond repairs and that the appellant has, therefore, filed a dispute bearing No. CC-II/473 in the IInd co-op. Court at Bombay for a permanent injunction restraining the opponents that is to say the respondents 1 and 2 from transfereing and/or re-transferring the suit flat in the name of the Respondent No. 3 who was the opponent No. 3 in the original dispute from the name of the Respondent no. 1 and/or transferring the suit fiat to any other name save and the disputant. A temporary injunction was also sought for restraining the opponents i. e. Respondents 1 and 2 herein from re-transferring the suit fiat in the name of the respondent no. 3. Another temporary injunction was also sought for restraining one Mr. Norman Media from coming to the suit flat and disturbing the homely atmosphere and/ot other undesirable elements and thereby disturbing the attention of the children from studying. The Respondents 1 and 2 were also sought to be restrained by an order and injunction of the trial Court from dealing with, disposing off, encumbering the articles viz. furniture and fixtures, etc. lying in the suit fiat and which allegedly belong to the disputant, the appellant herein.