TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the joint family properties since they are standing in his name, the plaintiff has filed the suit. The appellant also filed I.A. No. 1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. praying for issue of an order of temporary injunction against the respondent restraining him from constructing any structures in the suit schedule properties or from alienating, mortgaging or causing any injury to the water pipe line leading to the plaintiff's house and to the electrical supply of the plaintiff's house, until the disposal of the suit. The said I.A. was resisted by the respondent on various grounds. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, the learned Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dismissed the I.A. filed by the appellant for temporary injunction. Hence, this Appeal, 4. In RANGAMMA v. KRISHNAPPA 1968 (1) Mys. L.J. 552 this Court has laid down as to what should be the scope of the appeal preferred by a party against the granting or refusal of temporary injunction by the lower Court. In that Ruling, it is held as follows: Granting or refusal of temporary injunction rests on the sound exercise of discretion by the Court. Such e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty is held for the benefit of another person for whom he is a trustee or towards whom he stands in such capacity. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower Court has not properly interpreted and applied this Section to the facts of the case. According to him, the case of the plaintiff will come under Exception (a) to Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. He submitted that the property standing in the name of the respondent who is a coparcener of a Hindu undivided family is held for the benefit of the coparceners in the family and, therefore, Section 4 will not be attracted to this case. It is an admitted fact that the properties are standing in the name of the respondent since 1979. Though there is a presumption in Hindu law that a particular family is a joint family till it is proved otherwise, there is no presumption that any particular property held by a member of the joint family is the property of the undivided Hindu Joint family. From the admitted facts of the case, it is clear that the property is standing in the name of the respondent since the time of its purchase in 1979. It is for the plaintiff to show that Section 4 of the Act will not be app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, a statement in a pleading sworn, signed or otherwise adopted by a party is admissible against him in other actions. In Marianski v. Cairns (1852) 1 Macs 212, the House of Lords decided that an admission in a pleading signed by a party was evidence against him in another suit not only with regard to a different subject matter but also against a different opponent. Moreover, we are not concerned with the technicalities of the English law. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes no distinction between an admission made by a party in pleading and other admissions. Under the Indian law, an admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other suit. In other suits, this admission cannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to the party to show that it is not true. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied on NAGINDAS RAMDAS v. DALPATRAM ICCHARAM ALIAS BRIJRAM AND ORS. MANU/SC/0417/1973 In that Ruling also, it is held as follows: Admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the respondents will suffer, if it is granted, lies on the applicant. The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. BANGALORE L.I.C. EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OP, SOCIETY LTD. MANU/KA/0310/1988 wherein this Court has held as follows: The preventive remedy of injunction is granted as an instant antidote to stop or prevent the invasion of the plaintiff's rights in regard to which a complaint is made. The Court having regard to the expediency involved should not embark upon a nit-picking operation at that stage by holding a Mini-trial to lay thread-bare the case of the plaintiff to find out if a prima facie case is made out or not. It would be sufficient if the Court is assured that questions raised by the plaintiff are not vexatious or too casual, but are such as to merit serious consideration at a subsequent stage. However, in a case where predicting of a possible result for the plaintiff (as things now stand) being some-what hazardous, it would be very necessary to tread with great caution the ground for grant of temporary injunction. But at the same time in exercising its discretion the Court must be totally circumvent and exercise ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -established principles; for if it issues erroneously, an irreparable injury is inflicted for which there can be no redress, it being the act of a Court, not of the party who prays for it. It will be refused till the Courts are satisfied that the case before them is of a right about to be destroyed, irreparably injured, or great and lasting injury about to be done by an illegal act. In such a case the Court owes it to its suitors and its own principles to administer the only remedy which the law allows to prevent the commission of such act. The discretionary power must be exercised with extreme caution and applied only in very clear cases; otherwise, instead of becoming an instrument to promote the public as well as private welfare, it may become a means of an extensive and perhaps an irreparable injustice. His Lordship has also quoted from Vol. 28 American Jurisprudence p. 217 as to what are the cautions that are to be exercised by the Court in granting an injunction as follows: Caution in Granting: Necessity of Clear Case: The extraordinary character of the injunctive remedy and the danger that its use in improper cases may result in serious loss or inconvenience to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ienating or mortgaging the suit schedule property. The appellant has also prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent from causing any injury to the water pipe line leading to the appellant's house and to the electrical supply of the appellant's house, until the disposal of the present suit. The respondent himself has filed a counter claim in the Court below praying for a mandatory injunction to demolish the construction which has been made by the appellant. In view of the prayer of the respondent for a mandatory injunction directing the demolition of the construction made by the appellant, the appellant's apprehension that the respondent is likely to tamper with his construction or the amenities does not appear to be well founded. The learned Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the respondent undertakes not to cause any injury to the water pipe line and the electrical supply of the house in which the appellant is residing. In view of these circumstances, I do not think that there is any case to issue a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from disturbing the amenities enjoyed by the plaintiff in his house. 10. The learned Counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
