Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(xxiii) It may be stated that in the second suit filed on 5th of March, 1991, ad interim injunction was granted. Thereafter application at Exhibit 34 was given on 24th of July, 1991 by the plaintiff and further interim injunction was sought to restrain the defendant, his servants, agents and members of the police attached to his father H. N. Jadeja from in any manner obstructing the plaintiff, his servants and agents from making any construction over the first floor in the bungalow and further injunction restraining him from handing over the interest allegedly and illegally acquired by him from Dilipkumar Jayantilal Modi by way of agreement to sell to any third party or parties in any manner whatsoever and further from handing over the possession of the ground-floor portion to any third party or parties.

(xxiv) Thereafter on 28th of October, 1991 application at Exhibit 42 was moved by the plaintiff claiming on the same pleadings which were made in the plaint of the first suit, in the plaint of the second suit as well as in the application for temporary injunction in the second suit, that the suit bungalow including the ground-floor along with the open parcel of land was the dwelling-house of the family of deceased Khemchandbhai Premchandbhai Modi and that Dilipkumar Jayantilal Modi and Mahipatsinh Himatsinh Jadeja, their servants and agents should be restrained from enjoying, using and residing in the ground-floor of the bungalow more particularly the chowk, staircase, upper floors and compound of bungalow of Plot No. A/5, Swastik Co-operative Housing Society and from handing over, transferring, alienating, selling or parting with the possession of the suit property. They also prayed for mandatory injunction directing Mahipatsinh Himatsinh Jadeja (defendant No. 1) to stop using and occupying the ground-floor of the bungalow or any part thereof and the compound and to restore the possession of the said ground-floor in its vacant condition to the plaintiff as the bungalow was a "dwelling-house."

(ii) In these two suits, the facts pleaded by the present appellants in the written statements/replies as well as documents produced and relied upon by the appellants were not only not sufficient to establish any prima facie case of the defendants and the deviation in the stand taken by the father of the transferee and Mr. Dilipkumar Jayantilal Modi was successfully and to the satisfaction of the trial Court brought out by the plaintiff and the case which was pleaded from the beginning by the plaintiff, based on Para 2 of Section 44 of the T. P. Act is the foundation of the pleading for grant of interim relief and neither there is change on any stand in their pleading nor have they at any point of time deviated from the various documentary evidence produced by them. The trial Court has after a very lengthy and well considered judgment written at the interlocutory stage without finally concluding any issue of fact or law, and mostly based on the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra) found that the case of the plaintiff fall squarely within the proposition of law established therein by three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court and that factual pleadings and proof produced by the plaintiff were closely parallel and comparable to those of the case before the Supreme Court and hence the case was a fit one for confirming the judgment and/or granting ad interim injunction as prayed for as balance of convenience was paramountly in favour of the plaintiff and secondly that grant of injunction as prayed for, was neither prohibited by law nor in any way inconsistent with the passing of the mandatory order as prayed for in last notice of motion taken out by plaintiff at Exhibit 42. The dubious devise adopted by the father of the transferee and his son in collusion with the transferor, namely, Dilipkumar Jayantilal Modi was so convincingly established before the trial Court by the documentary evidence that the trial Court found that it was a case closely comparable to the case before the Apex Court in the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden (supra) while granting mandatory interim injunction.