N.N. Mithal, J. - (1.) The order of injunction passed by the Trial Court is under challenge in this 1. The admitted position is that the original owner of the property in dispute left behind him one daughter and one son. On the death of the son his widow and two minor children became owners of the property. It is also undisputed that the daughter of the original owner as well as the natural mother of the two minor children both gifted their share in the property in favour of the minors and admittedly the minors are now sole owners of the disputed houses. It appears that the appellants had filed suit No. 721 of 1989 in the court of Munsif against the mother of the minors and some others seeking relief of injunction that they may not take forceable possession of the house and dispossess the plaintiffs therefrom. No interim order was granted in their favour in that suit. However, it appears that the parties filed a document described as a memorandum in which it was admitted that the natural mother of the minor children and their father's sister, who is appellant herein, both had accepted that the properties have been gifted to the minors and they alone are the full owners thereof. Subsequently the present suit was flied by the minors seeking a relief of injunction against the present appellants restraining them from taking illegal possession over the disputed houses. In that suit it was alleged that since there was a dispute between the parties the house was kept under the lock and key by the police. By the impugned order the court below has allowed the application for interim relief and has directed that the key of the house be handed over to the minors and temporary injunction has also been issued against the appellants that they may not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff and may not transfer the property to any one.
(2.) Sri A.D. Prabhakar has filed caveat on behalf of the minor respondents and is prevent in court.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record we do not find any merit in this appeal. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that under the memorandum executed between the natural mother and the appellant the right of management and supervision of the house vests in the appellant alone and this right could not be interferred with by the interim injunction which has been granted. A perusal of the order under appeal will show that this aspect of the matter has been duly taken notice of by the court and no effort has been made to interfere with the right of supervision and maintenance by the appellants. All that the court below has directed is that the minor respondents should be allowed to remain in possession of the property after the key has been handed over to them and the appellant shall remain restrained from transferring or disposing of the property. We do not find that this order is in any way illegal or suffers from any infirmity.;