MURLI MANOHAR JALAN Vs. BAL MANOHAR JALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous case is directed against the order dated 20th September 1994 whereby the prayer for injunction sought by the appellant (plaintiffs) was rejected. Before me, it was submitted that the appellants had filed Title Suit No. 72 of 1993, and they had claimed carving out their share in the suit property, as mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint. An injunction petition was filed and, after hearing both the parties, the lower court rejected the prayer of the plaintiff -appellants. The injunction was sought on the ground, inter alia that defendant -respondents in the suit were bent upon alienating the suit property and they were also going to damage the property so as to deprive the plaintiffs of their share. It is relevant to mention that earlier partition suit no. 45 of 1958 was filed by the father of plaintiff -appellant here and this suit was decreed ex -parte against the plaintiff -appellants. The plaintiff -appellants appeared during the course of final decree preparation proceeding and they were allowed their own share. It was also submitted that in the suit, property of Schedule -I of the plaint of the relevant Title Suit No. 472 of 1993 was not included and, there -, fore, earlier suit was bad for non inclusion of part of the joint family property and, accordingly, setting aside of the earlier decree was also sought. Whatever may be the case of the parties, the lower court rejected the prayer of injunction on the ground that the plaintiff -appellants had no prima facie case, balance of convenience lay in favour of defendant -respondents and no irreparable loss was going to be caused to the plaintiff -appellants. 3. Before me it was submitted that prayer for injunction was now confined to the lands of Schedule -1 of the plaint because the property in Schedule -ll of the plaint was the subject matter of partition in the earlier decree and it was under the charge of the receiver appointed by the Court. The respondents ' lawyer submitted that even the lands described in Schedule -1 of the plaint were under trust and the suit was not maintainable and no injunction could be granted. It was reiterated by the appellants ' lawyer that the properties claimed by the defendant -respondents to be under trust were claimed to be joint family properties by various pronouncements, statements, depositions and other acts of the defen -dants -respondents regarding which, papers were filed before the lower court. So the contention regarding trusteeship of some of the suit properties was invalid. 4. However, so far the question of grant of injunction is concerned, the most important principle governing the same was that irreparable loss should be caused to the plaintiff, in case of refusal of injunction. Balance of convenience should also lie in favour of the plaintiffs. The settled principle of law is that if a member co -sharer alienates any part of the suit property, the vendee shall take his interest subject to decision of the suit. Moreover, the vendee may be added as a party to the suit in order to bind him to the decision of the suit. So far allegation that the defendants shall damage the suit property, there was an earlier order passed by this Court on 16.12.1994 whereby the earlier grant of status quo was vacated and it was observed that the parties shall settle their dispute and if any injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiffs by the acts of the defendant -respon -dents, the aggrieved party shall be at liberty to file a fresh injunction petition. I think this observation in the earlier order dated 16.12.1994 will suffice, so far the present Misc. appeal is concerned and so far the grievance of the plaintiff -appellants is concerned. The lower court has passed a detailed order, taking into consideration all the circumstances and facts submitted by the parties and came to a definite conclusion that the plaintiff -appellants did not deserve any injunction. Moreover, I find that the parties are kith and kin and one of the defendants is mother of the plaintiff -appellant. So I do not think the plaintiff will be deprived of his share by any act of his mother. 5. In the result, I do not find any good case for interfering with the impugned order. This Misc. appeal is accordingly dismissed.