CHHOTE KHAN Vs. BARKAT & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The non-petitioners brought suit against the revision petitioner claiming that the property in possession of the defendants was a joint property and therefore they should be restrained from putting any construction, additions, alterations in the premises. The trial Court rejected the prayer. But in the appeal, the appellant Court found that there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from altering the status quo as to the property, putting up any new construction or conveying the property to some one else. It appears that the appellate Court lost sight of the fact that the parties to this litigation are Muslims governed by Mohammedan Law. The principles of joint family and family arrangement between co-parcener cannot be applied to Mohammedans. There is a bald statement of the plaintiffs that the property is of joint ownership. The documents produced before the Courts below are regarding family arrangement. In view of all this, it is clear that there is no prima facie in favour the claim of the plaintiffs that they owned the property jointly with the defendants. Defendants are admittedly in possession and to restrain them from putting any construction in the premises can be done only if a strong prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintiffs. It is therefore clear that the appellate Court has committed a material irregularity in setting aside the order of the trial Court and granting a temporary injunction. This revision petition is allowed. The order the appellate Court is set aside with the result that the order of the trial Court rejecting the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 is confirmed. Petition allowed. <a href='Judgement.aspx q=Civil Court Cases]1999]2]&p=1&pos=127&qType=4'>Previous</a> <a href='Results.aspx q=Civil Court Cases]1999]2]&p=1&rsv=C&qType=4'>Hitlist</a> <a href='Judgement.aspx q=Civil Court Cases]1999]2]&p=1&pos=129&qType=4'>Next</a>