Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) As both the appeals arise out of the same order, they are being disposed of simultaneously. Application filed by the plaintiff respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed by the trial court vide order dated March 29, 1993 and the defendant appellants were restrained from alienating and demolishing the property in dispute as well as from raising constructions over it. They were further restrained from using the property in question as a burial ground of private dead bodies during the pendency of the civil suit. This is the order that has now been assailed by the defendant-appellants before me.
(2.) In the civil suit the plaintiff respondents (for short the plaintiffs) averred that the late Tajuddin Shah by his will dated March 26, 1986 appointed a Committee of five persons for managing the Dargah of Maulana Ziauddin Saheb and its properties styling himself to be the Sajjadanashin and Mut-walli of the Dargah. The defendant appellant No. 1 Syed Zainullabedeen was not managing the Dargah of Maulana Ziauddin Saheb and its properties therefore it was necessary for the plaintiffs to file suit for possession, injunction and account of the said Dargah against the defendant-appellants (for short the defendants).
(3.) The defendants, in their reply to the application of temporary injunction, asserted that late Tajuddin Shah was neither Sajjadanashin nor the Mutwalli nor was the possession of the aforesaid Dargah and its properties, nor was he in any manner managing and discharging the function of the Sajjadanashin of the said Dargah. Throughout his life Shri Tajuddin claimed himself to be Sajjadanashin and later Mutwalli of the aforesaid Dargah and its properties but he lost the suits filed in that respect continuously. Therefore no prima facie case existed in their favour. Neither the balance of convenience was in their favour nor would they suffer irreparable loss in case the injunction was refused.;