- (1.) The short question that has been raised in this revisional application is whether the learned Appellate Court below could grant an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/opposite parties restraining the petitioner from disturbing the plaintiffs' alleged possession of an open land without ascertaining as to whether the plaintiff was in possession of such land.
(2.) The plaintiffs' application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 made in a suit seeking declaration and injunction in respect of immovable property, was dismissed. The appeal was allowed by restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the suit property.
(3.) The Appellate Court's criticism of the trial Court's order is found in the following lines: - "In the impugned order learned Court below observed ...though according to the title deed of gift and the R.O.R S. it appears that the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants are the owner of the suit property but from the document of the defendants i.e. the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 16.1.1932 which is the prior deed of the plaintiffs deed of gift, it is trite that the defendants predecessor and subsequently the defendants have certain interest over the suit property. Yes, that question is supposed to be decided in the suit. But that deed does not totally negate the claim of the plaintiffs. Defendants themselves admitted that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs also owned the bigger part of the land of which suit property is a pond. There was absolutely no reason to hesitate in holding that the plaintiff had a prima facie case.";