1. The lower Court, first of all, granted plaintiff an injunction, restraining defendants from interfering with her possession of the property in A and B schedules of the plaint merely on the ex parte statement of Plaintiff that she was in possession and without issuing notice to the other side, or giving them opportunity of being heard. This was clearly improper. When 1st defendant naturally moved to set that injunction aside, the lower Court then heard both sides and passed the order under appeal.
2. That order is itself very defective, in that (a) there is no finding that the property is in danger of waste or damage et cetera and (h) there is no finding as to who is in prima facie possession of the property, with which the injunction is concerned.
3. We are asked to support the order of the lower Court, because it can be supported from affidavits filed in the lower Court, from paragraphs 7 and 8 of defendant's written statement and from the presumption of law that possession follows title. On none of these grounds, has the lower Court relied and we are not prepared to usurp here the duty of the lower Court to find, inter alia, who were prima facie in possession, on the date of suit.
4. We cannot support an order, which evades the real points at issue. We cancel the lower Court's order and injunction.
5. 1st defendant will get her costs throughout in both Courts.