UMARAOSINGH DAULATSINGH Vs. RAMGOPAL RAMNARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Umraosingh, who is the surviving defendant in a suit by the opponents, has been sentenced under Order 39 Rule 2 (3) C. P. C. , for disobedience of a temporary injunction order. He had gone to the superior Court against the order itself but it has been maintained. Against the order of punishment, he went up in appeal which has also been dismissed. Now he has come up in revision alleging that for one thing, he was acting in a new capacity, and he was not interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, hut was entering property that had been in his possession from his father.

(2.) THIS case raises questions, as to whether a person charged with disobedience of an injunction order could question the facts on which the order had been passed; and secondly, whether the person who had been restrained in one capacity could disobey the order, and plead that he was doing so in another capacity.

(3.) THOUGH the facts of the suit are somewhat complicated, those relevant for our present consideration are simple. The plaintiffs alleged that on a part of their pucca tenancy they had permitted the present applicant and his father Daulatsingh who was also a defendant, to put up a house to enable them to work as agricultural servants on the basis of Naukarnama Their work being unsatisfactory, he terminated the agreement and called upon the defendants -- both the father and the son -- to vacate the house. The defendants had also been given some land which they surrendered but would not vacate the house. They wanted to do the work but the plaintiffs did not desire it. After this they stayed in the house and went one step farther by threatening to occupy the agricultural land and dispossess the plaintiffs from there. Accordingly the suit was for restoration of possession of the house and for permanent injunction restraining both the father and the son from going on the land and interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. The defendants for their part denied that they had given up the land; they fur- ther claimed that the house had been built by them with their own money and that they were entitled to stay in it.