Relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Defendants 8 and 9 in C. S. 996 of 1998 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli are the revision petitioners. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Relevant facts which necessitated filing this revision may be summarised thus : One Mohanraj died on 23-11-1997. Respondent herein is his brother. First petitioner is the widow of Mohanraj and second petitioner is first petitioner's father. First petitioner in her marriage with Mohanraj had given birth to a female child, whose name is Varsha Dhanashri. She was born on 23-2-1991.

3. Respondent herein alleging that Mohanraj appointed him along with first petitioner as guardian of minor Varsha Dhanashri, within two weeks from the date of death of his brother Mohanraj, filed O.P. (Guardian and Wards) to declare him as guardian of minor daughter and to have her custody and also properties which belong to Mohanraj but bequeathed under Will to his daughter. While filing Guardian and Wards Petition before District Court, Trichy, he also moved for interim injunction restraining first petitioner and her parents from interfering in the possession of properties. An ad interim injunction was also granted.

4. The matter was taken to this Court in C.R.P.No. 3575 of 1997 by first petitioner and her parents challenging the locus standi of respondent in filing suit and also in getting him appointed as guardian, when natural guardian is alive. As per order dated 18-2-1998, I set aside the order of District Court granting ad interim injunction and I further directed lower Court to pass orders about the maintainability of Guardian and Wards application before that Court. In my order, I wanted District Court to consider the question of territorial jurisdiction before entertaining the application. It is not now disputed that pursuant to my direction, district Court on 21-4-1998 dismissed the Guardian and Wards application 983 of 1997.

5. Even before my order in C.R.P. 3575 of 1997, first petitioner filed complaint before Commissioner of Police on 26-12-1997 and also another complaint after the order i.e., on 25-3-1998, before the same authority. In those complaints, first petitioner wanted to investigate into the affairs stated therein. In those complaints, it was said that respondent herein has stealthily removed moveables belonging to petitioner and minor child and it amounts to theft. It is also alleged that respondent herein has committed offence under Sections 465 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. She requested police authorities that the matter has to be investigated and the grievance must be remedied by them.

6. When Police wanted to investigate into the complaints filed by first petitioner, a suit was filed by respondent on 27-7-1998 making State as well as Police and petitioners herein as O.S. 996 of 1998. In that suit, he filed following reliefs :

(a) for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 8 and 9 from preferring vexatious complaint and thereby taxing the plaintiff doubly by defendants 1 to 7;

(b) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 8 and 9 from removing the articles from the hands of the plaintiff with the help of defendants 1 to 7 except under due process of law;

(c) award cost of the suit; and

(d) grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

7. According to petitioners, suit filed by respondent is barred and the same is abuse of process of Court, which should not be allowed to be retained on the file of Court.

8. When the matter came for admission, I ordered notice of motion and further proceedings in the suit was also stayed. After service of notice, respondent also entered appearance and I heard both side counsel.

9. Copy of the plaint is placed before me by learned counsel for petitioner. From a reading of the same, it is clear that respondent herein claims his right e