AZIZA BI Vs. MAJID HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN face of these rival claims and contentions, which undoubtedly requires detailed enquiry the very fact that plaintiff -appellant is claiming a declaratory decree of her title, goes to show that it yet to be enquired into and declared and before that if she claims any interim relief she has to make out a strong prima facie case. Looking to the nature of the relief she is claiming, it is not protecting her possession which she even does not claim, the interim relief claimed by her essentially relates to lawful title to the property. It is significant to note that while claiming a declaration of title and 1/2 share in the suit property the appellant does not claim the relief of possession. The permanent injunction sought in the suit is to restrain the defendants from alienating or grants favouring the suit property, in any manner.

(2.) SECTION 38 of the Specific Relief Act governs the grant of perpetual injunctions. The conditions prerequisite to the applicability of this section are as under

(3.) SHRI Gupta on the other hand contended that even this observation as made by the trial Court in face of the overwhelming documentary material, placed on record by the respondents, was erroneous and wholly unwarranted.