VBC 1 app917-10-19.10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
APPEAL NO.917 OF 2010
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2233 OF 2008
IN
SUIT NO.1870 OF 2008
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION 2233 OF 2008
Variegate Realestate Private Limited, a
Private Limited Company incorporated
under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered office at Solitaire Building,
3rd Floor, Block No.3, 80, S.V.Road,
Santacruz (West), Mumbai-400 054. ...Appellant.
Vs.
1. Tehmul R. Irani, of Mumbai Indian
Inhabitant, residing in Gardha Villa,
First Floor, 48, Hill Road, Behind
Elco Market, Bandra (West),
Mumbai-400 050.
2. Mehervan R.Irani,
of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant,
residing in Gardha Villa, First
Floor, 48, Hill Road, Behind Elco
Market, Bandra (West),
Mumbai-400 050. ...Respondents.
....
Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior advocate with Mr.S.V.Doijode and
Mr.K.G.Mhatre i/b. M/s.Doijode Associates for for the Appellant.
Mr.Shailesh Shah with Mr.Y.R.Shah for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.M.R.Irani, Respondent No.3 in person.
.....
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 :::
VBC 2 app917-10-19.10
CORAM : SHRI MOHIT S.SHAH, C.J. AND
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
October 19, 2010.
JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.):
1. Admit. With the consent of all the Learned Counsel and of the Original Third Defendant who appears in person, the Appeal has been taken up for hearing and final disposal.
2. This appeal arises out of a judgment of a Learned Single Judge on a motion for interim relief. By the order of the Learned Single Judge: (i) The First Defendant has been restrained by an interim injunction from creating any third party interests in the suit property and from inducting any third party, save and except the Second and Third Defendants into the suit premises; (ii) The First Defendant has been restrained from creating any further interests in favour of the Second and Third Defendants; and (iii) The Defendants have been restrained from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff over the rest of the suit property, save and except for the First Floor of the building. The original Plaintiff ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 3 app917-10-19.10 is in appeal. The carving out of the exception for the Second and Third Defendants gives rise to the appeal.
3. The suit was instituted by the Plaintiff for an injunction restraining the First Defendant from inducting the Second and Third Defendants or any other person into the suit property and from dealing with, disposing of, encumbering or creating any third party rights by inducting any third party into the property. A permanent injunction has been sought restraining the Second and Third Defendants from entering upon or remaining on the suit property. The property in question is land admeasuring 1406 square meters on which there is a bungalow, situated at Turner Road, Bandra. The First Defendant who was about eighty two years old, when the suit was instituted on 10 June 2008, died during the pendency of the suit on 16 August 2010. The Second and Third Defendants are nephews of the First Defendant. The Third Defendant, who has appeared in person, is an Advocate. The First Defendant was single and was a daughter of Sheriar Rustom Ahrestani. Sheriar had acquired an interest in the property as co-
owner under a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 29 August ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 4 app917-10-19.10 1944. Sheriar died on 12 March 1979. By a will executed by him on 17 April 1969, Sheriar bequeathed his one fourth undivided share in the property to his three sons in equal proportion. By the will, the wife of the testator and the First Defendant were allowed a right of residence in the property. The executors and the trustees under the will were directed to maintain both of them as long as they desired to live in the property at Bandra. Sheriar's will has been probated. The Plaintiff acquired title to the property by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 24 February 2005. The Deed of Conveyance records in clause 4 that a portion of the property on the First Floor admeasuring about 225 sq.ft. was in the occupation of Daulat (the First Defendant), the daughter of Sheriar. Prior to the execution of the Conveyance, a public notice was issued on behalf of the Plaintiff on 28 May 2004 of the proposed sale to which the First Defendant had raised an objection on 7 June 2004.
4. The case of the Plaintiff is that save and except for an area admeasuring 225 sq.ft. on the First Floor, which was in the occupation of the First Defendant, the Plaintiff was in occupation of the rest of the property. According to the Plaintiff, the Second ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 5 app917-10-19.10 Defendant would usually visit the First Defendant twice a day, once in the morning and once in the evening, to bring food for her from his residence at Gharda Villa. According to the Plaintiff, the Third Defendant, who is a lawyer, would visit the First Defendant once or twice a week. According to the Plaintiff, the Second and Third Defendants were attempting to create "a semblance of possession" on the property and were threatening the security guards deployed by the Plaintiff. The case of the Plaintiff is that as a lawful owner, the Plaintiff is in settled possession of the property and it is only the First Defendant, who had a right of residence.
Apprehending that the Second and Third Defendants were attempting to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff, the suit for injunction was instituted.
5. A motion for interim relief was moved by the Plaintiff, seeking an injunction restraining the First Defendant from inducting the Second and Third Defendants or any other person in the property and from dealing with or disposing of, or parting with possession of the property and from inducting any third party or entering into an agreement with any person including the Second ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 6 app917-10-19.10 and Third Defendants. An injunction was also sought against the Second and Third Defendants from entering upon or remaining on the property.
6. The case of the Second Defendant is that the First Defendant had created a tenancy in his favour in 2005 of the premises on the First Floor and his case was that he was residing together with the First Defendant. The Third Defendant claimed possession of one room on the First Floor of the bungalow which according to him, was allowed to him by the First Defendant since 2007 out of natural love and affection. During the pendency of the motion, an ad-interim order was passed by a Learned Single Judge on 22 October 2008, restraining the First Defendant from creating third party interests in the suit property and from inducting any third party, save and except for the Second and Third Defendants.
The First Defendant was restrained from creating further interests in favour of the Second and Third Defendants. The Defendants were restrained from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property, save and except for the First Floor. When the ad-interim order was carried in appeal, a Division Bench by an ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 7 app917-10-19.10 order dated 10 November 2009, directed the Learned Single Judge to dispose of the motion. Accordingly, the motion was heard and the impugned order has been passed.
7. On behalf of the Plaintiff, it has been urged by Counsel that the Plaintiff acquired the property under a registered Deed of Conveyance, dated 24 February 2005. Under the will executed by the father of the First Defendant, Sheriar, the First Defendant had only a right of residence in the suit property. The acquisition of the property by the Plaintiff was subject to the right of residence of the First Defendant. The First Defendant was in occupation of one room on the First Floor of the bungalow. The Second and Third Defendants have absolutely no right or interest in the property.
The Second Defendant would visit the First Defendant twice a day to bring food to her, while the Third Defendant, who is a lawyer, would visit her once or twice a week. It was urged by the Plaintiff that it had absolutely no objection to the Second and Third Defendants visiting the Plaintiff, but the suit was instituted because an effort was being made by the Second and Third Defendants to create evidence that they were in possession of the property ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 8 app917-10-19.10 together with the First Defendant. The Plaintiff sought to rely upon the records maintained by the security guards at the bungalow and from 25 March 2009, the Plaintiff commenced a round the clock Video recording. A transcript of the Video recording and CDs were filed together with affidavits in support of the case of the Plaintiff that the Second and Third Defendants were only visiting the First Defendant and were never in settled possession of the suit property. According to the Plaintiff, the affidavit filed by the First Defendant to the Motion establishes that the Second Defendant was only visiting the Plaintiff to bring food. A complaint filed by the Third Defendant on 9 May 2007 also records that the Second Defendant was visiting the premises daily to bring food to the First Defendant. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the Plaintiff is that such intermittent acts on the part of the Second and Third Defendants do not amount to settled possession and the attempt made by the Second and Third Defendants to create a record of paper possession cannot support a case of settled possession. An affidavit filed by the Third Defendant on 4 October 2007 in a suit before this Court on the Original Side (Suit 1465/86) also stated that both the Second and Third Defendants ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 9 app917-10-19.10 were residing at Gharda Villa. This according to the Plaintiff, would belie the case now sought to be put up by the Second and Third Defendants of being in possession of the suit property together with the First Defendant. The contention which has been urged on behalf of the Plaintiff is that the Supreme Court held in Rame Gowda vs. M.Varadappa Naidu,1 that settled possession must be effective, undisturbed and to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. It was urged that the Supreme Court has emphasized that possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be settled possession, extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner. Though the test laid down by the Supreme Court has been adverted to by the Learned Single Judge, it was urged that the order of the Learned Single Judge does not apply the test to the facts of the case. The Learned Single Judge, it is urged, failed to appreciate that the Second and Third Defendants were never in settled possession. An undisguised attempt has been made by the Second and Third Defendants to build up a paper record which is belied by the affidavits filed by the 1 (2004) 1 SCC 769 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 10 app917-10-19.10 First Defendant, the Third Defendant and by the other material on the record. All this material negates a case of settled possession.
8. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the Second Defendant that the executors of the will of Sheriar, who were brothers of the First Defendant, had not maintained her and it was the Second and Third Defendants who had tended to her needs. The First Defendant in her affidavit had explained that she was neglected by her brothers and that it was the mother of the Second and Third Defendants who had provided the First Defendant with food, clothes and medicine. The First Defendant stated that since she had no source of income and her brothers were threatening to dispossess her, she had inducted the Second Defendant as her tenant on the first floor of the bungalow and had issued rent receipts to him. On 24 February 2005 an incident took place when the Plaintiffs brought six security guards to the premises on the first floor. The First Defendant thereupon lodged a complaint with the local police station. The First Defendant complained that she was being harassed by the Plaintiffs. Counsel for the Second Defendant relied upon certain documentary ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 11 app917-10-19.10 material to buttress the contention that prior to the institution of the suit in June 2008, the Second Defendant was residing with the First Defendant. The documents on which reliance has been placed by counsel, at the hearing are : (i) A letter by the First Defendant to the Assistant Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on 25 October 20052; (ii) Letters by the First Defendant to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and to the Municipal Corporation on 17 February 20073; (iii) Rent receipts from 1 November 20054; (iv) A ration card in which the name of the Second Defendant is added on 30 July 20055; (v) A copy of the Second Defendant's pan card dated 4 October 20066. On the basis of these documents it was urged that the Second Defendant was in settled possession.
9. The case of the Third Defendant is that the First Defendant had permitted him to utilize a room on the first floor as his office space. The document on which the Third Defendant placed reliance at the hearing of the appeal are : (i) An application 2 Vol. 2 page 202.
3 Vol. 2 pages 203, 209.
4 Vol. 2 page 215.
5 Vol. 6 page 864.
6 Vol. 6 page 866.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 :::
VBC 12 app917-10-19.10
for inclusion in the electoral roll submitted on 16 March 20077; (ii) An application made to a mobile service provider on 24 November 20078; (iii) Postcards dated 25 March 2008 and 12 April 2008 9;
(iv) A docket in S.C. Suit 716 of 2008 dated 17 June 200510 and
(v) A Vakalatnama in S. C. Suit No.352 of 2005 dated 17 December 2007. The Third Defendant submitted that the Plaintiffs should have prayed for possession in the suit and neither he nor the Third Defendant can be dispossessed at the interim stage.
10. These submissions would fall for consideration.
11. The First Defendant had under the will executed by Sheriar a right of residence during her lifetime. The will has been probated. The Plaintiffs acquired title to the property under a registered deed of conveyance dated 24 February 2005; Clause (4) recognizes the First Defendant's right of residence in a portion of the property situated on the first floor. The Plaintiffs moved the Court on the basis that the Second and Third Defendants were 7 Vol. 6 page 886.
8 Vol. 6 page 889.
9 Vol. 2 page 278.
10 Vol. 2 page 288.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 :::
VBC 13 app917-10-19.10
"dishonestly attempting to create a semblance of possession of the said property" . The Plaintiffs contended that they were informed by the security guards that the Second Defendant visited the premises twice a day, while the Third Defendant visited the premises where the First Defendant resided twice a week. The case of the Plaintiffs was that the Second and Third Defendants did not reside with the First Defendant in the premises. The Plaintiffs relied upon the records maintained by the security guards.
12. Now a prima facie evaluation of the material on the record brings out the following circumstances :
(i) On 9 May 2007 a police complaint was lodged by the Third Defendant at the Bandra Police Station11. The Third Defendant states in the complaint that his aunt who was aged 82 years resided on the first floor of the bungalow. The Third Defendant stated that his brother, the Second Defendant would visit the premises daily to give lunch, tea etc. to the First Defendant. The complaint was that he was obstructed at the gate;
(ii) The First Defendant in an affidavit filed to oppose the 11 N.C. Case 1721/2007 lodged at 11.45 hrs. on 9 May 2007 - (Vol.2 page 277A) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 14 app917-10-19.10 Notice of Motion specifically mentioned as follows :
"I say that every day the Defendant No.2 brings food, tea, fruits and other eatables from his father's residence which is convenient for both of us. I say that the Defendant No.3 attends his office at the Dawn Bungalow as per his requirements." (emphasis supplied) The First Defendant further stated that "Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have a right to visit me and remain with me on the first floor of the 'Dawn' bungalow as they are nephews". The First Defendant then attempted to set up a case that the Second Defendant was residing with her as a tenant and that the Third Defendant had an office on the first floor;
(iii) An affidavit was filed by the Third Defendant on 4 October 2007 in a suit instituted by his father on the Original Side of this Court12. In the said affidavit, the Third Defendant has averred as follows :
"I say that the said Plaintiff's residential premises is situated on Plot No.83, Hill Road. I say that the said property known as Gharda Compound has not been legally sub-divided hence there is no adjoining Plot. I deny that the Plaintiff is residing in the residential premises only with his son Mr. Mehervan Irani (a practicing lawyer and a Constituted Attorney of the 12 Rustom Boman Irani v. Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai - NM 2360/2007 in Suit 1465 of 1986 (Vol 6 pg 911).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 :::
VBC 15 app917-10-19.10 Plaintiff). I say that the Plaintiff's other son Mr. Tehmul R. Irani is also residing with him." (emphasis supplied) Clearly therefore the averment of the Third Defendant was that both he and his brother, the Second Defendant, were residing in residential premises known as Gharda Compound. This material, prima facie, is consistent with the case of the Plaintiff that neither the Second nor the Third Defendant resided in the suit property and that as a matter of fact both of them resided in premises situated at Gharda Compound. Despite this, in the affidavits that were filed in the Notice of Motion a false case was sought to be put up to the effect that the Second Defendant was residing as a tenant of the First Defendant on the first floor of the suit premises for which the First Defendant had issued rent receipts13. In a further affidavit14 the Second Defendant set up a palpably false denial of the fact that he was residing with his family at Gharda Villa and that the Third Defendant was operating from his residence at the same place. These affidavits are palpably false and show a scant regard for the truth.
13 The affidavit of the First Defendant is at Vol. 1 page 66 (at para 4 page 67) 14 Vol. 1 page 142 (at page 148).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 :::
VBC 16 app917-10-19.10
13. The Plaintiff has relied upon video recordings which commenced from March 2009 following up on the reports of the security guards at the premises. According to the Plaintiff transcripts together with the CDs have been filed together with an affidavit deposing to the authenticity of the record which has been maintained on a round-the-clock basis. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was after these transcripts and recordings were placed before the Court that the Second and Third Defendants sought to alter the existing pattern but even that would not constitute settled possession on the date of the suit. At this stage, the evidentiary value of the video recording and of the reports of the security guards is yet to be established. This must await the trial of the suit. We have hence evaluated the material on the record independent of the video recordings and transcripts.
Independent of the video recordings and transcripts, the material which has been adverted to above is sufficient to indicate that both the Second and the Third Defendants used to visit the suit property and were not in settled possession. The Second Defendant visited the suit property twice a day to bring food to the First Defendant ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 17 app917-10-19.10 who was his aged aunt while the Third Defendant visited her occasionally. Both the Second and the Third Defendants resided separately in Gharda Villa. What the Second and Third Defendants, however, attempted to do is to create a paper record to buttress their plea of being in possession of the premises during the lifetime of the Plaintiff.
14. Before evaluating the other documentary material it is necessary to advert to the position in law. In Rame Gowda's case a Bench of three Learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that the law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking the law in his own hands and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner, if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. The owner of a property may prevent even by using reasonable force, a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature. The Supreme Court has held that "it is the settled possession or effective possession of a person without ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 18 app917-10-19.10 title which would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the true owner". What constitutes settled possession is elucidated in the following observations of the Supreme Court :
"The possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against the rightful owner must be settled possession, extending over a sufficiently long period of time and acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. The rightful owner may reenter and reinstate himself provided he does not use more force than is necessary.
Such entry will be viewed only as resistance to an intrusion upon his possession which has never been lost.
A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force. In Puran Singh case15 the Court clarified that it is difficult to lay down any hard-and-fast rule as to when the possession of a trespasser can mature into settled possession. The "settled possession" must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser." (emphasis supplied) The test that must be applied before it can be held that a person is in settled possession is that the possession must be effective, undisturbed and to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser.
15 (1975) 4 SCC 518.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 :::VBC 19 app917-10-19.10
15. The Learned Single Judge proceeded to rely on the documentary material, to which a reference has been made earlier and in the impugned judgment, to arrive at a prima facie finding that the Second and Third Defendants were in possession. The judgment of the Learned Single Judge, with respect, misses the issue of settled possession in the application of the law to the facts of this case. The Learned Single Judge cited the decision in Rame Gowda. The documentary material, however, has not been evaluated on the anvil of the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda. Whether there was an act of acquiescence on the part of owner and whether the Second and Third Defendants were in effective and undisturbed possession with the knowledge of the owner and without any attempt at concealment by the Second and Third Defendants has not been considered. Hence, we find merit in the contention of the counsel for the Appellant that the Learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated the test that has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda's case. To constitute settled possession, there has to be possession to the knowledge of the owner, which must extend over a sufficiently long period of time and must be acquiesced in by the true owner.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 :::VBC 20 app917-10-19.10 In the present case, it is evident that a paper record was sought to be created by the Second and the Third Defendants to buttress a plea of possession. This is, however, belied by the contemporaneous material to which a reference has already been made which shows that neither of them was in settled possession.
16. There has been an undisguised attempt on the part of the Second and Third Defendants to create a documentary record to further their case of possession. This despite the existence of sufficient material including the statements of the First and the Third Defendants on affidavit that (i) The Second Defendant used to visit the suit premises twice a day to bring food to the First Defendant; (ii) Both the Second and Third Defendants did not reside in the suit premises and on the contrary resided at Gharda Villa. There is merit in the contention of the Plaintiff that it was after the Plaintiff obtained title to the suit property on 24 February 2005 that the Second and Third Defendants attempted to create some sort of documentary record. For instance on 26 March 2008, a little prior to the institution of the suit in June 2008 the Third Defendant addressed a letter to the Prothonotary and Senior ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 21 app917-10-19.10 Master of this Court seeking to bring on record of the Original Side registry his new office address at the suit premises. The rent receipts upon which reliance has been placed by the Second Defendant are dated 1 November 2005 (evidencing the payment of a sum of Rs.1,000/-); 2 August 2006 (evidencing the payment of an amount of Rs.1,200/-), 1 April 2007 (evidencing the payment of Rs.3,600/-) and 21 January 2008 (evidencing the payment of Rs.
7,200/-). All these payments purport to have been made in cash.
The name of the Second Defendant was inserted in the ration card of the First Defendant on or about 30 September 2005. These are all documents unilaterally obtained by the Second and Third Defendants. If the Second and Third Defendants were in juridical possession of the suit premises, such documentary material could possibly have lent support to the contention of being in possession of the suit premises. A person who has otherwise no right, title or interest to or in immovable property must, however, establish a case of settled possession before he can set up a valid defence to a claim to injunction of the lawful owner. That is why the Supreme Court has postulated that settled possession as a basis for defending a claim of the rightful owner must extend over a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 22 app917-10-19.10 sufficiently long period of time and must be acquiesced in by the true owner. Casual, intermittent or stray acts do not amount to settled possession. Settled possession has to be to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. There is absolutely no material in the present case to lead to the conclusion that the Second and Third Defendants were in settled possession of the suit premises. There is nothing to indicate that they were in possession of such nature or for such period of time or in such circumstance should lead even prima facie to the inference that it was acquiesced in by the true owner. There is a conspicuous lack of any material whatsoever that would lead to a prima facie inference of facts that would impute knowledge to the owner. The totality of the material on the record is indicative of the circumstance that it was the First Defendant who had a right of residence in the suit premises. The Second and Third Defendants visited the suit premises where their aged aunt, the First Defendant resided. The Second Defendant brought her food twice a day and the Third Defendant visited her on occasion. Both of them resided at Gharda Villa and not in the suit premises. In these circumstances, a case was made out by the Plaintiffs for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 23 app917-10-19.10 grant of an interlocutory injunction pending the disposal of the suit. The basis on which the injunction was sought was the apprehension of the Plaintiffs that the Second and Third Defendants were creating a record to show a semblance of possession over the suit property. The Second and Third Defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. In the absence of their being in settled possession, a prima facie case was made out by the Plaintiff for the grant of interlocutory injunction. The balance of convenience must necessarily follow in favour of the rightful owner in whom the title to the property rests.
The error, with respect, in the approach of the Learned Single Judge is that though the impugned judgment refers to the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda, the judgment does not apply those tests to the factual material on the record. A paper record which was sought to be created by the Second and Third Defendants must remain what it is, namely on paper alone;
particularly where the facts on the record belie the defence that the Second and Third Defendants were in settled possession.
17. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the Appeal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 ::: VBC 24 app917-10-19.10 must be allowed and the order of the Learned Single Judge must be set aside. There shall accordingly be an order in these terms. The Motion instituted by the Plaintiff (Notice of Motion 2233 of 2008) shall accordingly stand absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as follows :
"(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 be restrained by temporary order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from entering upon or remaining on the said property described in the Schedule at Exhibit 'A' to the Plaint or any part thereof without the permission of the Plaintiff."
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:33:21 :::