Decided on March 04,2021

Jasper Lee Pakyntein Appellant
Sumarmai Hynniewta Respondents


H.S.THANGKHIEW,J. - (1.) The facts as set out in brief is that the appellant claims that he was running a hostel in a building belonging to his mother-in-law (respondent) and due to a family dispute, had instituted a Title Suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the District Council Court at Shillong, to declare him as the owner of the hostel under the name and style of 'The North East Girls and Boys Hostel', and that the respondent (defendant), had no right to interfere with the supervision and management of the hostel together with a prayer for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with the management of the hostel. The learned trial Court by order dated 25.11.2019, granted ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the appellant which however, on an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the respondent, after hearing the parties, vacated the ad-interim injunction vide order dated 16.12.2019. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court by way of this application under Order 6 of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 2014.
(2.) Mr. H.R. Nath, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned lower Court had erred in holding that the appellant was seeking declaration of title over the hostel building when in fact the declaration was sought only over the hostel business and not the building which was undisputedly the property of the respondent. He submits that the learned lower Court on a wrong appreciation of materials had failed to acknowledge the fact that even though there was no written agreement of tenancy or rent receipts, the documents of agreement entered into by the appellant and the hostellers was abundant proof that the appellant was the owner of the business operating from the said building which established a prima facie case in his favour. He further submitted that the learned Court below while applying the ingredients necessary for grant of injunction had miserably failed to consider the competing rights of the parties and the balance of convenience which was squarely in favour of the appellant and also that irreparable loss would be caused if the appellant could not run his hostel business.
(3.) Learned counsel submits that the vacation of the ex parte ad-interim injunction dated 25.11.2019 by the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside and quashed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.