The main legal point established in this judgment is that a prima facie case is required for the grant of a temporary injunction, and the burden of proof lies on the party seeking the injunction to establish such a case. The court also emphasized that delivery proceedings only affect the right, title, and interest of the judgment-debtor and cannot bind a larger interest or group of persons.

1. This motion has arisen in an interlocutory proceeding for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from entering the suit properties. Along with the institution of the suit, the plaintiff moved for and the Munsiff ordered interim injunction on April 7,1965. On receipt of notice thereof the 2nd defendant entered appearance and prayed for cancellation of the interim injunction as regards plaint items 1 to 5 to which alone she claimed title and possession. The Munsiff allowed that prayer and limited the injunction to concern plaint items 6 to 9. On appeal by the plaintiff the District Judge, Palghat, held the lower court to have gone "wrong in vacating the interim injunction with regard to items 1 to 5", and, finding the crops on the properties to have been raised by the 2nd defendant, directed the lower Court to "make suitable arrangements for harvesting the crops." The 2nd defendant has come up for a revision of that order.

2. The facts are thus: The plaintiff is the first wife, and the 2nd defendant is the second wife of one Karuman who is no more. 1st defendant is the mother of the 2nd defendant and does not claim any interest in the suit properties. The contest is between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant only. Karuman had executed on December 1, 1949, a hypothecation in favour of the plaintiff over the plaint properties, 9 in number, and on December 23, 1949, a gift of plaint properties Nos.1 to 5 with transfer of possession to the 2nd defendant. Ext. B-3 order, dated July 21,1958, shows that in a proceeding moved by the plaintiff with Karuman and the 2nd defendant on the array of parties, the plaintiff set up possession of the present suit item No. 5 but it was repelled by the Court which found possession with the 2nd defendant as per the gift of December 23,1949. Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted a suit in 1962 (O. S. No. 183 of 1962) to enforce the hypothecation in her favour the 2nd defendant was not made a party to that suit and in execution of the decree obtained therein the plaintiff purchased in Court-auction the suit properties. Ext. A3 is a copy of the delivery report dated August 1, 1964 in that case. It shows that the delivery excluded the standing crops and buildings on the properties. On the above facts, which are not in dispute, the plaintiff claims title and possession as per the Court-sale and delivery had in O. S. No. 183 of 1962, and the 2nd defendant claims title and possession as per the gift of 1949.

3. Indeed, Karuman was a party to the Court-sale and delivery proceedings had in O. S. No. 183 of 1962 and had subscribed in Ext. A-3 acknowledging to have surrendered possession of the properties; but, he had gifted plaint items Nos.1 to 5 to the 2nd defendant as early as December 23,1949; and in Ext. B3 order of 1958 to which he and the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant were parties the Court has declared the gift to have come to operation in possession. It is surprising that in spite of that declaration the plaintiff did not make 2nd defendant a party to her suit instituted in 1962 to enforce the hypothecation on the gifted properties. The equity of redemption was vested in the 2nd defendant. She alone could represent it in the suit. It is trite law that an alienee-after-mortgage would not be affected by the decree and execution proceedings in a mortgage-suit to which he was no party. In Hargu Lal Singh v. Gobind Rai ILR.19 All. 541 the plaintiff obtained a simple mortgage in 1879 and the defendants purchased the property in 1886 from the mortgagor. In the suit to enforce the mortgage only the original proprietor, but not his assignees, was made a party. The property was brought to sale and purchased by the mortgagee in execution of his decree. He then brought the suit to enforce possession against the assignees of the mortgagor. Though the Munsiff allowed it, the District Judge reversed him and dismissed the suit. On appeal, Edge C. J., speaking for a unanimous Full Bench of fi