Chhangani, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' revision against the appellate order of the District Judge, Jaipur City dated 18th December, 1959 rejecting their appeal and affirming the order of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City dated 27th November, 1959 refusing to grant a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs
(2.) IT will be very convenient to give a genealogy for a proper understanding of the facts of the case: - Harbux Mohrilal Champalal *mst. Panchi (widow) (adoptive) Mst. Goranbai (deceased) Chetram alias Gopikishan *mst Pokhli (died issueless) (widow) Harbux who had considerable property in Jaipur died in Samwat year 1954 leaving his son Mohrilal and daughter Mst. Goran. Mohrilal died in Samwat year 1962 leaving his adoptive son Champalal. Champalal died in Samwat year 1974 leaving his widow Mst. Panchi, who is one of the opposite parties in this case. Chetram was adopted to Champalal in Samwat year 1978 and became the owner of the property originally belonging to Harbux. He died in the Samwat year 1983 leaving his widow Mst. Pokhali, who is also one of the opposite parties. On 11th October, 1934, Mst. Pokhali widow of Chetram alias Gopikishan filed a suit against Mitt. Goran and Mst. Panchi for the possession of the entire property belonging to deceased Harbux, including a shop situated in Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur, more particularly described in para No. 2 of the plaint, to which the present litigation relates. The suit was decreed by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur State on 4th April, 1936. Mst. Panchi remained satisfied with the decree, but Mst. Goran challenged the decree by way of appeal in the Chief Court of Jaipur State and subsequently, before the Council of the former Jaipur State, but remained unsuccessful. Subsequently, on 5th October, 1948, Mst. Pokhali created a trust in the name of Champalal Gopikishan Sabu Trust in respect of the entire property including the suit shop. To this Trust Panchi was a consenting party. In para 7 of the Trust Deed, provision was, however, made for the discharge of the debts that were outstanding against Mst. Pokhali herself and a debt of Rs. 1,000, outstanding against Mst. Panchi. The Trust Deed also provided that the two widows would be maintained out of the trust property, and each one of them will be entitled to Rs. 30/- per month for maintenance. It appears that under some mutual arrangements, Mst. Panchi was permitted to appropriate the rental income of the shop in dispute, and it also appears that the rent notes in respect of the shop were also got executed in her favour. However, some time before 31st July, 1950, Mst. Goran took possession of the entire trust property including the shop in question and appears to have let out the shop to one Jhumarlal. The trustees filed a suit against Mst. Goran for possession of the properties on 31st July, 1950 in the court of the District Judge, Jaipur. During the pendency of that suit, Shri Gaffar Ali, Advocate, was appointed a Receiver in respect of the property in dispute. On the footing that Jhumarlal was a tenant of the shop in dispute on behalf of Mst. Goran, the Receiver filed a suit for ejectment against Jhumarlal, which was eventually decreed on 25th November, 1954. When the Receiver took proceedings for securing the possession of the shop in dispute, Mst. Panchi intervened and objected to the Receiver's taking possession of the property in her own right. The objections of Mst. Panchi failed before the execution court. She, therefore, filed a declaratory suit praying that it should be declared that she was not liable to be ejected in execution of the decree passed in favour of Receiver Gaffar Ali and against Jhumarlal. Later on, during the pendency of the suit, she let out the shop in dispute to the present petitioners Hansraj and others on a rent of Rs. 35/- per month. In the suit filed by Mst. Panchi, a temporary injunction was issued in her favour on 11th February, 1958, and the same was affirmed by the appellate court on 9th May, 1958. Later on, some talks for compromise took place and ultimately, Mst. Panchi's suit was dismissed on 25th November, 1958. It may be mentioned that Mst. Panchi thus remained bound by the decree passed against Jhumarlal. The suit filed by the trustees against Mst. Goran was ultimately decreed by the District Judge, Jaipur on 17th July, 1958 and. in execution of that decree, the trustees who are defendants in the main suit and are opposite-parties, sought to dispossess the petitioners from the shop in dispute and one of the petitioner Banshidhar in that connection put up an application requesting for one month's time to enable him to make alternative arrangemerits. It was mentioned that the shop has been in possession of the petitioners for the last three years and that he has considerable outstandings against various persons, and that he will be put to serious loss in consequence of immediate dispossession. This application was allowed and one month's time was given to the petitioners for the purpose of vacating the shop. The petitioners however, instead of vacating the shop filed a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Jaipur City on 8th October, 1959 for a declaration and injunction against the Trust and the trustees, Mst. Pokhali, Panchi, Gaffar Ali, Receiver etc. In the plaint, after referring to both the decrees passed in favour of Shri Gaffar Ali, the Receiver, and the trustees, it was pleaded that Mst. Panchi and the plaintiffs were not parties to these decrees and they were not binding upon them and Mst. Panchi. It was further alleged that Mst. Panchi was in possession of the shop as owner and that she did not obtain possession of the shop either through Mst. Goran or Jhumarlal and that she was not liable to be ejected in the execution of both the decrees and consequently, the plaintiffs who were let into possession as tenants by Mst. Panchi, could not be ejected. Various other grounds were taken and the plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that they should be declared as being in possession not on behalf of Jhumarlal or Mst. Goran, but in their capacity as tenants of Mst. Panchi and, therefore, not liable to be ejected. Along with the plaint, an application for temporary injunction, restraining the trustees, i. e. defendants No. 1 to 14, from dispossessing then in the execution of their decree No. 28/1958 against Mst. Goran, was made. This application was dismissed by the trial Judge on 27th November, 1959 on the ground that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case in their favour. An appeal by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the District Judge, Jaipur City on 18th December, 1959. The plaintiffs have consequently filed this revision. Mr. Bhandari appearing for the petitioners very strenuously contended that the petitioners could not be treated as bound by the decree against Mst. Goran and that the courts below had not considered the correct meaning of the expression, "persons bound by the decree" and erred in dismissing their application for a temporary injunction. On the other hand, it was contended with equal vehemence by the Advocate General appearing for the opposite-parties that the orders of the courts below are quite correct in law; the petitioners have not been able to make out any prima facie case in their plaint and that in view of the application of one of the plaintiffs himself seeking time, the discretionary relief by way of injunction was correctly refused and this Court should not, in the exercise of the discretionary revisional jurisdiction, interfere with the orders of the courts below.
(3.) THE main question that calls for determination in this case is as to whether the petitioners can be considered as bound by the decree against Jhumarlal and Mst. Goran and this in terms depends upon the determination of the true meaning of the expression, "persons bound by the decree ". Mr. Bhandari relied on Jiban Krishna Ghost vs. Simrikha Koer (1), Ibrahim vs. Konammal (2), Sailendra Nath Bhattacharjee vs. Bijanlal Chakravarty{3) and Gurushiddaswami vs. D. M. D. Jain Sabha (4 ). Jiban Krishna Ghose vs. Simrikha Koer (1) is of no great assistance. In that case, the objector claimed a right of residence in a portion of the property and objected to the delivery of possession to the decree-holders. The objection was allowed. It does not discuss the expression, "persons bound by the decree " and provides no principle for guidance. In Ibrahim Sahib vs. Konammal (2), Mr. Bhandari has relied upon the following observations: - "that being the position of the appellant it is impossible to see how they can tie regarded as tenants, against whom there could be an order for delivery under O. 21 R. 35 or R. 36 at all. They are in fact, if the decree-holder's view of their position is correct, simply persons who are claiming to enter on the forests so fat as the Jaghir is concerned without having any right legitimately derived from any competent person to do so. The appellants remedy will be either in criminal prosecution or in a suit for damage". This case (2) was mainly decided on the basis that cm earlier petitions by the decree-holder, there was a complete delivery of the property, the subject-matter of the decree and that no fresh applications were competent. In view of these facts, no great assistance can be derived from these general observations divorced from the facts of the case. Besides, the expression in question was not discussed. ;