The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper exercise of discretion by the court in granting or refusing temporary injunctions, the application of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988, and the requirement for the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case for an injunction.

( 1 ) IN the court-below under order 43, Rule l (r), CPC against the Order, dated 12-7-1991 passed by the xvi additional city civil judge, Bangalore city, Bangalore, in o. s. No. 348 of 1990 dismissing la. No. I filled by the appellant under order 39, rules 1 and 2, CPC for grant of temporary injunction.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent and another defendant for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the eldest son of defendant-1 and the respondent is the second son of defendant-1 and plaintiff's brother. As the respondent has refused to effect partition in the joint family properties since they are standing in his name, the plaintiff has filed the suit. The appellant also filed I. A. No. I under order 39, rules 1 and 2, CPC read with Section 151, CPC 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 plaintiffs 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 vkrishnappa, 1968 (1) Mysore law journal 552 this court haslaid 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 exercise of discretion cannot be lightly interfered with by the appellate court, unless it is shown that such exercise of discretion is unreasonable or capricious. That a different view was possible on the facts and circumstances of the case by itself will not be sufficient to interfere with the order. "now it will have to be seen in this appeal whether the lower-court has properly ex- ercised the discretion vested in it in dismissing the application of the appellant for grant of temporary injunction. The relationship between the parties is notdisputed in this case. The appellant is the eldest son of the respondent 1 who has been deleted in this appeal and the respondent No. 2 is the brother of the appellant and second son of defendant 1. It is also an admitted fact in this case that the suit schedule properties are purchased in the year 1979 and they stand in the name of the respondent the appellant contended that though the properties are standing in the name of the respondent, they are in fact purchased for and on behalf of the joint family property. In substance, the case of the appellant is that the properties are standing benami in the name of the respondent though, in fact, they are the joint family properties. The lower-court has relied on Section 4 of the benami transactions (prohibition) Act, 1988, (which will hereinafter be referred to as "the act" ). Section 4 of the act reads as follows:"4. Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami. (1) no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. (2) no defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf a per