Chandrakant Ramlal Choudhary v. Shyamprasad Zinkooram Choudhary

ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: . The Appeal from Order has been filed against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, who has allowed the application filed under Exhibit 5 and

granted temporary injunction restraining defendant No.2 who is appellant No.1 herein from running the quarry business on survey No.21/1 and 2, singlehandedly. The entire dispute has arisen because according to the plaintiff, the suit property formed part of the HUF : 2 : property established by one Zinkooram Choudhary who was the grandfather of Defendant No.2. The Plaintiff’s claim that various properties which are listed in the application for ad-interim injunction were purchased by the Zinkooram Choudhary in the name of various members of his family. It appears that Zinkooram had married one Amra Zinkooram Choudhary who predeceased him leaving behind two sons Ramlal, Defendant No.1 and Shamlal who is also dead. After the death of his wife, Zinkooram married Plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 are the two issues from the second marriage.

The dispute has arisen because the plaintiffs claimed that all properties which are listed in the application are purchased by Zinkooram and Defendant No.2 does not own the properties listed at serial Nos.3 and 6 in the application.

Defendant No.2 claims to have been conducting the stone crushing business on these two properties at serial Nos.3 and 6 in the application since 1986. He claims that his father who was a partner in the Partnership firm known as M/s.Zinkooram Rajit & Co. had sufficient means to purchase properties enlisted at serial Nos.3 and 6 of the application. Defendant No.2 claims that after purchasing the properties these properties were gifted to him by his father and : 3 : therefore, he has been in possession of these properties and has been mining the same.

By the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court, Defendant No.2 has been restrained from conducting the quarry business on Survey Nos.21/1 and 2 in which respect he claims to have possession. The learned Advocate for Defendant No.2 who is the appellant No.2 herein has drawn my attention to certain documents which indicate that Defendant No.2 had declared the properties were in his name. Furthermore, he submits that there is no document on record which establishes the fact that Zinkooram had purchased these properties out of his own funds and that these properties were part of the family hotchpotch. The learned Advocate submits that unless the plaintiffs were able to show ownership rights or possessory rights in respect of the suit properties at serial Nos.3 and 6 of the application, no temporary injunction could have been granted against Defendant No.2 restraining him from quarrying the land. He relies on the judgments in Mudigowda Gowdapa Sankh &