Temporary injunction requires a clear prima facie case; benami bar and weak interim evidence justified refusal.

Interference with refusal of temporary injunction is justified only where the trial court's discretion is shown to be unreasonable or capricious. In an interim injunction dispute over claimed joint family property, the applicant had to establish a clear prima facie case, but the properties stood in the respondent's name and no material at the interlocutory stage showed that the claim fell within the coparcenary exception to the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Prior admissions in an earlier plaint were relevant but not conclusive, and the asserted risk of alienation or loss of amenities did not demonstrate irreparable injury when the alleged share could still be worked out in partition proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal of temporary injunction was liable to be interfered with in appeal, and whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for injunction in a dispute claiming joint family property but facing the bar of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Analysis: Interference with an order granting or refusing temporary injunction is warranted only when the trial court's exercise of discretion is shown to be unreasonable or capricious. In matters of interim injunction, the applicant must establish a clear prima facie case, and where the claim is uncertain or doubtful, the extraordinary relief should not be granted. The properties stood in the respondent's name since purchase, and no material was produced at the interlocutory stage to show that the case fell within the coparcenary exception to Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Alleged admissions in a prior plaint could be used as evidence, but they were not conclusive and did not by themselves establish the plaintiff's case. The claimed risk of alienation or disturbance of amenities did not show irreparable injury, particularly when the plaintiff's substantive share in partition would remain available in the final adjudication.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for temporary injunction, and the order refusing injunction was not liable to be disturbed.

---