Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. It is contended that as an injunction existed restraining the Court of Wards from giving Bhairabendra possession the latter was not in a position to deliver possession and therefore no claim for possession could be made end suits for declarations simpliciter would be maintainable.

33. It appears to me, however, that this in-junction was no bar to a suit for possession brought against Bhairabendra as represented by the Court of Wards, because once it was established that Bhairabendra had no title and that the same was in the successful plaintiff the Court of Wards' right to manage would cease. All that the injunction meant was that whilst the Court of Wards was in management of the property which it was entitled to manage, it should not hand over or release the property to Bhairabendra. The injunction would have no effect if it was established that the property belonged not to Bhairabendra but to a third person. He could recover possession as against Bhairabendra through the Court of Wards, as strictly, the possession throughout is the possession of the ward and not of the Court of Wards. All that the injunction really meant was that the Court of Wards should not release the property or give up management in favour of Bairabendra. If, however, a successful claimant made good his title to the property the Court of Wards would not be acting in breach of the injunction in giving up the management. Bhairabendra through the Court of Wards could be ejected in execution of a decree and that being so, the fact that an injunction existed did not, to my mind, make it impossible for the plaintiffs in these suits to claim possession of the property.