Samir Kumar Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This first miscellaneous appeal is directed against an order refusing the prayer for interim injunction, made on behalf of the present appellant, as plaintiff, in a suit, inter alia, for cancellation of the deeds of revocation of trust, of sale and of lease all dated 5.3.63 and another deed of lease dated 11.7.1966 and for declaration that the decree passed in T.S. 704/81 is not binding and that Trust Deed dated 8.7.1955 is valid and the plaintiff petitioner was the beneficiary thereunder with respect to premises Nos. 266-A and 266-B, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta.
(2.) The relevant facts may be stated as follows : One Lal Behari Mallick, was the owner of the disputed properties; he executed a deed of trust, relating to 266A, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta, inter alia, providing for utilisation of the benefits of the income of trust property by himself and after his death by his wife and in the event of they having an issue, by such issue as the absolute owner of the suit property; the present plaintiff/appellant is admittedly the daughter of the said settler and was born on 18.6.1957; the father of present respondent No. 1, was the personal doctor of the said settlor and was also a tenant under him with regard to the adjoining house being 266B, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta; when the plaintiff/appellant, was of the age of about 6 years, the said settlor appears to have revoked the trust by the aforesaid deed of revocation and sold the property to the said doctor of his, who in turn created a tenancy in favour of the said settlor by a deed of lease as mentioned above; all the aforesaid three documents appear to contain a statement that the said settlor and his wife did not have any issue on the dates of execution thereof, presumably for the purpose of justifying the revocation and sale without complying with the required statutory formalities; the terms of tenancy, had subsequently been modified by a further deed making the tenancy operative for the life time of Lal Behan; after the death of Lal Behari, in or about 1971, a suit for eviction was instituted by the father of respondent No. 1 against the present plaintiff appellant and her mother; during the pendency of an appeal before the High Court, the plaintiff/appellant attained majority and admittedly contested as such major the proceeding before the Supreme Court arising on the basis of the special leave for appeal to Supreme Court, from the judgment and decree passed by this High Court in appeal the appeal before the Supreme Court stood dismissed and the decree for eviction was put into execution whereafter the present suit had been instituted leading to the instant appeal.
(3.) The trial Court appears to have dismissed the application for interim order, inter alia, on the following grounds:- (i) After the Supreme Court judgment a judgment in rem-the plaintiff must be deemed to have been properly represented. (ii) Question of fraud has no relevance after pronouncement by Supreme Court. (iii) Due to expiry of period of limitation after attainment of majority by plaintiff, she cannot get any benefit due to her minority. ;