CHANDER KANTA Vs. SUNITA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PAWAN Kumar during his life time not only gifted his property, but also entered into family settlement, made partition as well as suffered decrees. After his death, dispute arose between his heirs, In the present litigation, his daughter tiled a suit for declaration as well as for possession claiming share in the property. Along with the suit, she made an application for grant of ad-interim injunction. The application was contested by the defendants The trial Court finding prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, granted ad-interim injunction. This order was challenged by the defendants in appeal, which was allowed on the ground that no ad-interim injunction can be granted in a suit for declaration, and consequently, the injunction granted by the trial Court was vacated. This order is being impugned in the present revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present suit is not a suit for declaration simplicities, but primarily a suit for possession and the prayer for declaration is only Incidental.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 has vehemently argued that the petitioner was not entitled to injunction. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Surja v. Gopi, 1970 Cur. L. J. 188. Mr. Sarin has also contended that even on merits, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of ad interim injunction.