Interlocutory mandatory injunctions may protect an undivided family dwelling house against stranger-purchaser possession pending trial.

Interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted only in special circumstances and require a strong prima facie case, irreparable injury, and a balance of convenience in favour of the applicant. In a dispute over a dwelling house of an undivided family under section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, a stranger-purchaser of an undivided share has no right to joint possession or common enjoyment, and the co-owner's right to exclude intrusion is a valuable one. On the facts, the property remained undivided, the transfer was made with knowledge of the family's rights, and interim protection was needed to preserve status quo. Mandatory interim relief was therefore justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a suit concerning a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family under section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, a stranger-purchaser of an undivided share can be restrained by an interlocutory mandatory injunction from remaining in possession of the portion purchased.

Analysis: Interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted only in special circumstances and ordinarily require a stronger showing than a prohibitory injunction. The Court applied the settled principles that the applicant must show a strong prima facie case, a likelihood of irreparable injury, and that the balance of convenience lies in his favour. In the context of section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, the transferee of a share in a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family, if not a member of that family, has no right to joint possession or common enjoyment. The right of the non-transferring co-owner to resist the intrusion of a stranger into the family dwelling house is therefore a valuable right, and denial of interim protection may itself cause irreparable injury. On the facts, there was sufficient material to show that the property continued to be undivided qua the dwelling house, that the transfer was made with knowledge of the family's rights, and that possession had been taken in a manner calculated to defeat the appellant's claim before effective judicial relief could be obtained. These circumstances justified restoration of the status quo by interim mandatory relief.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to an interlocutory mandatory injunction restraining the stranger-purchaser from remaining in possession, and the trial court's order was restored.

---