The judgment emphasizes the significance of the decree of permanent injunction, the validity of registered gift deeds, and the application of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act in determining property rights.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the defendants against the order by which plaintiff shobhanlal's appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (r), civil Procedure Code has been allowed and they have been restrained from interfering with his possession on the lands in dispute and from alienating these lands to any other person.

( 2 ) GAJANLAL and Tejanlal were brothers and they were holding 14. 99 acres of lands in village Khutia, Tehsil and District Balaghat: tejanlal had half share in these lands and that came to 7. 49 acres. He died, Kamabai was his widow and defendant No. 1 Gangabai is his daughter. Plaintiff Shobhanlal is son of Gajanlal shobhanlal and Kamabai instituted Civil Suit no. 288-A of 1986 in the Court of III Civil judge, Class II, Balaghat against Gangabai and three other persons. That was contested by the defendants. It was decided by the judgment dated 29. 4. 1989. A certified copy of that judgment is on record. It was held in that civil suit that Tejanlal had died in the year 1954-55, that is, before the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, his daughter Gangabai was not his heir, the lands left by Tejanlal were inherited by his widow Kamabai ; she became absolute owner of these lands, she executed registered gift deed dated 11-1-1961 marked ex; P-1 in that civil suit in favour of her nephew shobhanlal in respect of 7. 49 acres of land left by Tejanlal, and the recording of the name of Gangabai by the Naib Tehsildar by order dated 24-4-1984 is invalid. After recording these findings it was declared that the said order of the Naib Tehsildar is ineffective and gangabai has no right or share in the lands in dispute left by her father. She was restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff on these lands by the decree of per-petual injunction. Para 3 of the decree reads

( 3 ) KAMABAI died on 15-4-1999, After her death the name of her daughter Gangabai has again been mutated by the Revenue Court in place of her mother by order dated 19. 5. 1999 and she is claiming partition of the lands. She is intending to transfer the lands in dispute shown in annexure 'a' to the plaint to other persons. Therefore, the present suit has been filed for declaration that the said mutation and partition at the instance of Gangabai are void and for injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff on these lands and from transferring any portion of these lands to anyone. In this Civil Suit the application for temporary injunction has also been filed.

( 4 ) THE case of the defendants is that plaintiff Shobhanlal got the registered gift- deed executed from Kamabai by undue influence and fraud. Gangabai being the heir of her mother is entitled to the lands left by her, therefore, her name has been rightly mutated in place of her mother. There has been a partition through the Revenue Court on 13-11-2000 and Khasra nos. 12,20,24, and 80/2 have been allotted to the share of Gangabai and she has been placed in possession thereof on 17. 11. 2000. The total area of these lands is 4. 96 acres. Gangabai has executed registered sale deed dated 1. 12. 2000 in favour of defendant No. 5 kusmabai in respect of Khasra No. 80/2 area 3. 04 acres.

( 5 ) THE trial Court by order dated 16-1-2001 held that plaintiff Shobhanlal has a prima facie case but there is no balance of convenience in his favour because of the partition effected by the Revenue Court. It was also held that the plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable injury and therefore the application for temporary injunction was rejected.

( 6 ) ON appeal by Shobhanlal it has been held by the Appellate Court that there is not only prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff but the other two ingredients for grant of temporary injunction are also in his favour because of the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 288 of 1986 referred above. The order of temporary injunction as stated at the outset has been issued in favour of the plai