IQBAL KHAN Vs. LQLAKH KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMITTEDLY , the appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is in possession of the property and his name has been mutated in the Revenue records. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed a declaration that the 'Hibanama' on which the defendant No.1 has taken the possession and got his name mutated, is not binding to his rights. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was also filed seeking a temporary injunction, restraining the defendant No.1 not to alienate or transfer the suit property. Though, the trial Court found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, refused to grant injunction as the defendant No.1 stated that he ha~ no intention to transfer the suit property, nor to alienate the same.

(2.) IT was contended by Shri Maheshwari that to avoid Multiplicity of proceedings, the Court when once having found prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, ought to have restrained the defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property, hence, indulgence in appeal is sought.

(3.) IN terms of the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.