B JOSEPH AND TWO Vs. RUSTROM GEW IRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these revisions arise out of a common order, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) C.R.P.No. 5733 of 2002 arises out ofCM.A.No. 71 of 2001, which arose out of the order in I.A.No. 133 of 2001 in O.S.No. 208 of 2001. C.R.P.NO. 5809 of 2002 arises out of the order in C.M.A.No. 72 of 2001, which arose out of the order in I.A.No. 48 of 2001 in O.S.No. 23 of 2001. Since parties to C.R.P. No. 5733 are the same as in C.R.P.No. 5809 of 2003, except for the fact that there is one more revision petitioner in C.R.P.No. 5809 of 2003, I would herein after refer to the parties as they are arrayed in C.R.P.No. 5809 of 2002.

(3.) Revision petitioners who arepetitioners/plaintiffs in I.A.No. 48 of 2001 in O.S.No. 23 of 2001 are the appellants in C.M.A.No. 72 of 2001. Revision petitioners 1 and 2 are the respondents/defendants in I.A.NO. 133 of 2001 in O.S.No. 208 of 2001. O.S.No. 23 of 2001 was filed by the revision petitioners seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of a open plot measuring 600 Sq. yards, in Ward No. 25, Block No. 4, Survey No. 71 of Kadipikonda village, herein after referred to as the suit property, alleging that Miss Mahar Banoo and Miss Shirin Bai, through their power of attorney Kaikhusroo, sold that property to the second revision petitioner under Ex. P-17 agreement of sale dated 28-12-1973, and put him in possession thereof, and that he subsequently settled the same on the 2nd revision petitioner under Ex. P-18 registered settlement deed dated 12-11-1998, after obtaining permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, under Ex. P-18 and thus they have been continuously in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and have been using the same as play ground-cum-assembly and prayer premises for the students of the 3rd revision petitioner school being run by the 2nd revision petitioner. Respondent who has no title or interest therein, is trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof, and filed I.A.No. 48 of 2001 in the said suit seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit property and obtained an order of ex parte injunction.