1988 Supreme(Raj) 596
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohini Kapur, J.
Smt Kamla Devi - Appellant
Versus
Rani Avanti Bai Shiksha Samiti Bharatpur through Govind Prasad - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 666 of 1987.
Decided On : 25-05-1988
In order to obtain a mandatory injunction, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case that it is entitled to the relief sought. The evidence relied upon by the plaintiff must be sufficient to show that there is a strong likelihood that the plaintiff will succeed in the suit.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - MANDATORY INJUNCTION - ORDER 39 RULES 1 AND 2 CPC - SECTION 151 CPC - INHERENT POWERS OF COURT - JURISDICTION - PRIMA FACIE CASE - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - RUNNING OF SCHOOL IN DISPUTED PREMISES - ADMISSION OF FUNCTION CELEBRATION - COMMISSIONER'S REPORT - PHOTOGRAPHS - ABSENCE OF RENT NOTE AND DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF RENT PAYMENT - AFFIDAVITS OF PERSONS - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a school, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendant, alleging that the defendant had locked the main gate of the school premises, preventing the plaintiff from carrying out its activities. The plaintiff claimed that it had taken the premises on rent from the defendant for running the school and that the defendant had breached the contract by locking the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the lower appellate court granted a mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff, holding that there was a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff that the school was being run in the disputed premises. The courts relied on two photographs, one showing a function being celebrated in the premises and the other showing the school children and teachers standing outside the locked premises, as well as the report of the Commissioner who had inspected the premises.
Issues: 1. Whether the courts below erred in granting a mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff without considering the sufficiency of the evidence to establish a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff. 2. Whether the evidence relied upon by the courts below, namely, the photographs and the Commissioner's report, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The courts below erred in granting a mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff without considering the sufficiency of the evidence to establish a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff. 2. The evidence relied upon by the courts below, namely, the photographs and the Commissioner's report, was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the orders of the trial court and the lower appellate court granting a mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiff were set aside.
JUDGMENT
1. - In a suit filed by the non petitioner, the trial court has granted a mandatory injunction to the effect that the petitioner shall open her lock on the main gate and allow the plaintiff to carry on the work of school in the disputed premises, and further that she should not restrain the employees etc. of the school from doing their work in the premises. This order has been confirmed in appeal by the Additional Civil Judge No 1 Bharatpur by his order dated 25-9-1987. Against this order this revision has been filed. The non-petitioner has appeared without being served and at the same time has given an undertaking that the locks shall not be opened till this matter is finally decided.
2. It is necessary to mention the facts of this case. The dispute is about the house belonging to the petitioner left to her by her father Babu Gokulji Verma, who is said to be a renowened freedom fighter of Rajasthan. The non- petitioner plaintiff instituted a suit for mandatory injunction with the allegations that the property in dispute was taken on rent of Rs. 151-/- per month from the petitioner for purpose of running the school in whose name the suit has been instituted. It was mentioned that at the time of taking the property on rent from 1-7-1987, it was agreed that the plaintiff would run its school in this building and that if the defendant required the property she would give a notice of one month to get the premises vacated. but she would get it vacated only at the end of the session. Similarly the plaintiff would also vacate by giving one month's notice and vacate at the end of the school session. It was alleged that the institution was paying the rent regularly and the school was running in this building. The suit which was filed on 2-9-1987 contained the allegation that on 1-9-1987 the petitioner put her lock on the main door of the house with the result that the school children could not go inside and teaching could not be done The petitioner at that time said that she was not interested in letting out the property and that she would not allow the school to run In this way she broke the contract for letting out the property and it became necessary to file the suit. Application for grant of mandatory injunction was filed along with the plaint, in which it was mentioned that the institution was facing great difficulty in absence of building which the petitioner has denied to them by putting her locks and that the students are left in the open air and would lose one year if proper arrangements are not made for their schooling.
3. On 3-9-1907 the Commissioner went to the site for inspection and he made a report that the defendant petitioner was standing on the roof of her house and when asked to open the door she refused to open it. She also refused to sign the report. The Commissioner gave a description of the surrounding property without being able to enter inside the house and make an inspection of the interior of the house. He reported that school teachers an children were standing outside and some of them were sitting on chabutri in front of the house.
4. The defendant petitioner filed a reply to the injunction application saying that she never let out any part of per house to the plaintiff petitioner for running the school and never handed over the premises to the school for this purpose. The conditions alleged to have been agreed at the time of tenancy were also denied. Her case is that the non-petitioner wants to take forcible ana illegal possession over her house by this story of taking the premises on rent. Her case is that some time before 15-3-1987, Govind Prasad, who is manager of the plaintiffs tiff school, came to her and requested her to give permission to celebrate the function of Independence Day in her house as there was not enough place for doing this in the house of Vijay Pahalvan where he was running the school. She was persuaded to do so by saying that the programme of Independence Day would be in memory
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
