SATISH CHANDER Vs. CHANDER KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No.1-Chander Kanta filed a Civil Suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the petitioner-Satish Chander, her husband and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from interfering into her peaceful possession over shop situated at Parade Ground near Government Women College, Jammu and forcibly dispossessing her therefrom without adopting due course of law. It was pleaded by her that the shop was obtained by her husband from the father of respondent No.2 and a Rent Deed was executed by him in this behalf in the year 1978. She is stated in possession of the shop along with her husband since then. Pleading that the petitioner had become old and being in an unbalanced state of mind because of ill health, it was respondent No.1 who was running the shop carrying therein business of Fast Food, Cold Drinks and Eatables. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are stated to have entered into conspiracy with the petitioner to take forcible possession of the shop.

(2.) RESPONDING to the respondent 's Claim in the Suit, the petitioner denied her entitlement to injunction specifically pleading that it was he who was the tenant in possession of the shop and the respondent had no right, title or interest therein to maintain the Suit and seek injunctive directions against him, the lawful occupant thereof. The Trial Court of learned 3rd Additional Munsiff, Jammu, did not find any prima facie case in favour of respondent No.1 and dismissed her Application holding that neither the balance of convenience was in her favour nor would it cause irreparable loss, in case injunction was not granted to her.

(3.) BEFORE considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it becomes necessary to refer to the observations made by the trial Court whereby it did not find any prima facie case in favour of respondent No.1 and those made by the Appellate Court on the basis whereof the petitioner was restrained from interfering into respondent No.1 's possession over the shop. Observations made by the trial Court read thus:- "The case of the plaintiff as projected in the plaint is that she is in possession of the suit shop, jointly with her husband (defendant number 3) in this case, by virtue of a rent deed, registered on 11 May, 1978. The plaintiff/applicant has annexed a photocopy of the same and the perusal of this rent deed reveals that it was made between Sh. Gian Chand (father of defendant No.1 Ashwani Kumar) and Sh. Satish Chander (defendant No.3). By virtue of this rent deed, it is only the defendant no.3, who is in possession of the suit shop and it is nowhere mentioned in the said rent deed that the plaintiff and the defendant no.3 shall be the joint tenants of the suit shop.