1. ' This is an application filed by the plaintiff praying for termporary injunction restraining the defendant or any other person from selling or transferring the rights of the ownership of the property bearing No,2/216, Turk Colony, Baldia Township, Karachi, and dispossessing the plaintiff from the property in question and further restraining them from redeiving the rent of the property in question. As per averments made by the plaintiff, he is son of one Mst. Hajiani Puri Bai. The defendant is also her son. It is stated that the said Mst. Hajiani Puri Bai had gifted away the abovesaid property to the plaintiff and a Declaration gift deed was duly executed by her in favour of the plaintiff. A photostat copy of the gift-deeds is filed alongwith the plaint. The name of the plaintiff as well as the defendant as owners appears in Form-E of the Excise & Taxation Department. As per averment made by the plaintiff the defendant is taking steps for the sale of the property on the basis of a forged declaration of gift said to have been made by the deceased in his favour.
2. ' Under these circumstances the plaintiff has filed this suit. According to defendant her mother never gifted the property to the plaintiff and the declaration of gift deed in favour of the plaintiff is forged document. On the contrary, it is averred that the deceased had gifted away the said property to him and declarations of gift deed dated 26-5-1981 and 20-9-1981 being Annexures D-1 to D-3 to the written statement were executed by her. It is stated by him that the defendant has been regularly making payment of Government taxes, water-conservensive charges etc. According to him the deceased had filed a suit against the plaintiff bearing No,3573 of 1989 for declaration in the Court of IInd Sr. Civil Judge, who vide judgment dated 20-2-1981 had held, that the property belonged to the said deceased and the plaintiff had nothing to do with that, therefore, the said judgment operates as res judicata.
3. ' It is contended by the plaintiffs' counsel that the property was gifted away by her deceased mother to him subsequent to the said judgment and therefore new development had taken place.
4. Besides, in the earlier suit the dispute was between the mother and him and the defendant had nothing to do with it. It is not possible for the Court at this stage to ascertain the true facts which can only be appreciated by evidence of the parties. The plaintiff has, however, established a prima facie case for interim injunction. I accordingly grant interim injunction as prayed till further orders.
2. This is an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Praying that the plaint is liable to be rejected as it does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is hit by section 11, C,P.C., is not maintainable under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, and also barred under the provision of the Limitation Act.
5. Learned counsel for the defendant has not been able to satisfy me as to how as per averments made in the plaint, no cause of action had accrued against the defendant when the plaintiff has specifically alleged that the defendant got forged documents of gift prepared and has been taking steps for sale of the property. He has also not been able to satisfy me how a judgment passed by a Court in a dispute between the plaintiff and deceased in respect of the property would operate as res judicata in this suit in which the plaintiff and the defendant are parties and which is based upon a separate cause of action. Similarly, the learned counsel for the defendant has not been able to pin-point how the suit is not maintainable in view of section 56 of the Specific Relief Act or how it is barred under the provisions of Limitation Act. I, therefore, find no substance in this application and dismiss it.