( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2010, allowing I.A.No.329 of 2010 in O.S.No.541 of 2008, filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and thereby granting temporary injunction restraining the appellant herein, from interfering with the respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of petition mentioned property, the appellant/8th defendant has preferred this appeal.

( 2. ) THE circumstances, which led the appellant/8th defendant to file the present appeal, are as follows:

(a) THE minor respondent herein is the plaintiff and she filed the suit through her mother, against the defendants numbering 8 for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in Item I, 1/12th share in item II and 1/8th share in item III schedule properties and for a permanent injunction to restrain the 8th defendant bank (the appellant herein) from in any way dealing with the minor's share in the above properties. THE 1st defendant is her father.

(b) THE bank has also filed an objection under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter for brevity's sake referred to as 'SARFAESI ACT') for taking possession of the properties.

(c) Pending suit, I.A.No.329 of 2010 for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff. THE affidavit was sworn to by the mother, on behalf of the minor plaintiff, and it has been stated that her father-in-law Krishnasamy @ J.V.Krishnamurthy got the suit properties by way of partition deed dated 12.12.1957, which was executed between himself and his brothers. THE said Krishnamurthy had one son (the father of the minor plaintiff) and two daughters, viz., Manjula and Anitha, who are defendants 6 and 7 in the suit. In the suit properties, the minor is entitled to 1/4th share in Schedule 'A', 1/12th share in schedule 'B' and 1/4th share in 'C' schedule properties. THE father of the minor plaintiff i.e.the 1st defendant had mortgaged the suit properties with the 8th defendant bank including the share of the minor. It is the contention of the mother of the plaintiff that the mortgage created in favour of the 8th defendant bank shall not bind in respect of the share of the minor. But, in the said loan, the parents of the minor have executed personal guarantee along with the mortgage to stand as security for the loan availed by the borrowers. THE parents of the minor plaintiff have no right whatsoever to mortgage the property forgetting that the minor is entitled to the shares in the suit properties. THE guarantee given by the parents of the minor has no validity and is not binding in law. While that being the position, the 8th defendant bank resorted to SARFAESI proceedings ignoring the fact that the minor has filed the suit for partition. Hence, the minor plaintiff has filed an application, seeking an order of injunction restraining the bank from dealing with the properties.

(d) THE application was resisted by the 8th defendant bank stating that the minor and her parents are all residing under the same roof. THE parents of the minor stood as guarantors by executing a personal guarantee along with mortgage deed in respect of a loan borrowed by M/s.R.K.S.Health Care Limited. Originally the credit facilities were with Indian Bank, Lawley Road Branch, Coimbatore and they were subsequently took over by the 8th defendant from the said bank. THE parents of the minor are the beneficiaries in the said business concern. THErefore, the guardian mother now cannot pretend to be an ignorant of any loan and say that the minor's interest is affected. THE guardian of the minor is one of the signatories to the loan papers and she is fully aware of the fact that the loan is availed only in the interest and benefits of the family. THE 8th defendant bank has initiated action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, which is a self contained code enacted for a special purpose and therefore, once a notice is issued under section 1