The main legal point established is that the trial court must consider the evidence of possession and purchase before granting a temporary injunction in property disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the order passed in O.S.No.29/2010 on I.A.No.1 restraining the appellants by granting temporary injunction from obstructing the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit properties. These appellants are defendant Nos.5 and 6.

3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants is that suit schedule properties were purchased on 24/9/2009 by the mother and sisters of vendors of the appellants and counsel submits that consequent upon purchase of sale deed on 24/9/2009, all the revenue records are standing in the name of the appellants and appellants were also in possession of the properties consequent upon the sale deed executed by the vendors. The trial Court has committed an error in granting an order of injunction against the purchasers i.e. appellants and they have purchased the properties from the sons and brothers of the plaintiffs and also counsel would contend that there was a family partition among the father and sons in the year 1988 itself and counsel submits that by that time mother was represented by minor guardian by one of the son i.e. defendant No.1 and parties have acted upon in terms of the partition and subsequently all revenue records are transferred in favour of the vendors and in the year 1988 the daughters were not having any right in respect of ancestral property and granting injunction order against defendant Nos.5 and 6 i.e. appellants who are in possession, is nothing but a perverse order passed by the trial Court. Hence, it requires interference.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would contend that the alleged vatani was made in 1988 when the daughters are minors and submits that the trial Court having perused the material on record only comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties as joint owners and properties belong to joint family and it is ancestral property and hence, it does not require any interference.

5. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly plaintiffs have pleaded with regard to their right and no doubt suit was filed in 2010 and subsequent to the amendment of Central Enactment, but it is the contention of the appellants that already there was a partition in the year 1988 and based on the said partition Khata was also effected in favour of vendors of the appellants and subsequently the sale deed was executed on 24/9/2009 and when there was already a partition in the family and as on the date of the partition the deceased were not having any right in respect of the property and whether there was a bonafide purchase or not the matter has to be adjudicated during the course of trial and however, the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the purchasers i.e. appellants are not bonafide purchasers and the said aspect ought not to have been decided while considering I.A.No.1 and the very approach of the trial Court is erroneous.

6. Counsel brought to notice of this Court that wife and children of vendors of appellants have also filed suit in O.S.Nos.182/2010 and 183/2010, wherein they have sought an order of injunction and trial Court comes to the conclusion that these appellants are the bonafide purchasers and this order is passed within four days of the earlier rejection of the earlier order i.e. on 23/11/2011 and the impugned order is passed on 19/11/2011 by the same Judge and contra opinion is given in different suits. When such being the matter, it is nothing but a perverse order and in one suit claims that defendants i.e. appellants are in possession and in the other order the Court has given finding that plaintiffs are in possession and fails to take note of the fact that already sale was made and there was partition among main members of the family prior to the amendment and subsequent to the amendment no doubt sale has been made by the main m