The court confirmed that unlawful possession cannot be protected by an injunction, and ownership of the suit property was a determining factor in the decision.

Sat Pal, J. - This petition has been directed against the Order dated 15.6.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. By this order, the learned Additional District Judge has confirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court on 8.6.1998 by which the learned trial court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction.

2. Mr. Chhibbar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff is admittedly the wife of the respondent No. 1 namely Sandeep Singh Sandhu and she is the daughter-in-law of respondent No. 2 Davinder Kaur Sandhu. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner-plaintiff had been put into possession of the suit premises by the respondents themselves when they were not prepared to keep her in the matrimonial home situated at Amritsar. He further submits that the learned lower appellate court has passed the impugned order on the wrong assumption that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to establish her possession for a long period. In this connection he has referred to para 10 of the grounds of revision and submits that the plaintiff started residing in the house towards the end of 1997. He, therefore, contends that from this fact it is clearly established that the petitioner-plaintiff had been residing in the suit premises for a long period. The learned counsel also submitted that in para 2 of the plaint a clear averment was made by the plaintiff that she had been living in this house since the end of 1997 and this averment has not been specifically denied by the respondents-defendants, in the written statement.

3. The learned counsel further submits that the learned lower appellate Court has passed the impugned order on another wrong assumption that the petitioner-plaintiff had not approached the learned trial court with clean hands inasmuch as she had got the ex parte injunction by placing a wrong fact with regard to installation of telephone No. 780169 at her residence. The learned counsel submits that this telephone in fact pertains to the parents of the plaintiff who are residing in Chandigarh and it was given just as a contact number.

4. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme court in Premji Ratensey Shah and others v. Union of India and others, JT 1994(6) SC 585, was not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case there was a clear finding given by the Supreme Court that the defendants had not ghost of right, title or interest in the lands acquired from the original owner, but in the present case, the petitioner had the right in the property.

5. After hearing the learned counsel of the petitioner and having perused the impugned order I, however, do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner. From the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents-defendants, I find that in para-1 of the preliminary objection, it has been clearly stated by the defendants that on 14.5.1998, the plaintiff alongwith certain persons, whose names have been mentioned in that paragraph, broke open the locks of suit premises and even took away articles lying therein. For this, even an FIR was lodged by the defendants with the police. It is also not disputed that the petitioner-plaintiff had obtained an ex-parte injunction on 13.5.98 and thereafter she got the electricity connection on 27.5.98. Keeping in view these facts both the courts below came to the prima facie conclusion that prior to 13.5.98 the plaintiff-petitioner was not in possession of the suit premises. Since the prima facie findings of the courts below are based on the valid reasons, I am of the opinion that the judgments of the course below do not call for any interference by this Court in its jurisdiction under section 115 CPC. In this connection the following observation of the Supreme Court i