KARNADHAR HALDAR Vs. HARI PROSAD ROY CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-appellant obtained a decree against a third person in a suit to which the plaintiffs-respondents were not parties. The plaintiffs are landlords of the land in controversy and they brought their action to prevent the defendant from taking possession of the holding covered by the defendant's decree against that third person. Both the lower Courts have granted an injunction. It has been found that the holding claimed by the defendant is not a transferable holding and that the plaintiffs as landlords never recognised the defendant as a tenant by receipt of rent or otherwise.

(2.) Now, in second appeal four arguments have been submitted, of which the first embodies a new point which was not discussed in either of the judgments of the Courts below. It is this that the plaintiffs cannot get their injunction because the defendant has not invaded, or threatened to invade, their right to the enjoyment of any property and because the case does not come within Section 54 (d) of the Specific Relief Act, which says that a perpetual in junction may be granted where it is probable that pecuniary compensation cannot be got for the invasion of the plaintiff's right to property; So far as I am aware, this point is res Integra and this case must be decided according to its own facts and circumstances.

(3.) The learned. Vakil for the plaintiffs respondents relies, not only on the wording of Section 54 (d) bat also on Clause (e), which provides that a perpetual injunction may be granted where it is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings, and his contention is that, on the findings of fact arrived at, the defendant is a trespasser and not a tenant.