S.B.SINHA, DALVEER BHANDARI
M. Gurudas – Appellant
Versus
Rasaranjan – Respondent
What is the standard for granting interim injunctions in cases involving questions of adoption validity and ancestral property rights? What is the appropriate consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in granting injunctions where adoption and inheritance issues are in dispute? What is the court’s approach to the conduct of parties and security requirements when issuing interim relief in property partition and injunction matters?
Key Points: - A finding on prima facie case is a factual finding and must consider balance of convenience and irreparable injury as well as seriousness of the question to be tried (!) (!) - Interlocutory injunctions require bona fide contention and a serious question, not merely a triable issue; balance of convenience and irreparable injury are essential considerations (!) (!) (!) - Adoption validity (including whether a daughter can be adopted) is crucial to determining share/entitlement, and the court emphasized need to prove actual giving and taking ceremonies (datta homam) for valid adoption; otherwise inheritance follows from statutory shares (!) (!) (!) (!) - Courts may consider extent of plaintiff’s share and security/compensation issues when granting injunction, including whether defendants must furnish security if suit dismissed, and whether conduct of parties affects the equitable relief (!) (!) (!) (!) - Courts may permit sale or management of property (e.g., flats or commercial property) with conditions to preserve status quo and ensure eventual apportionment of relief post-trial; directions may include depositions in fixed deposits and court-appointed oversight (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted in S.L.Ps.
2. These appeals involving common questions of law and fact and having arisen from a common judgment were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. One M. Obalappa was the owner of the property. He had three sons, viz., Nagappa, Obalappa and Kadarappa. M. Obalappa died in 1889. Nagappa separated himself in the year 1913. Obalappa and Kadarappa were, thus, in joint possession of the properties in suit. Obalappa died in 1949. He had no issue. The plaintiffs-respondents are said to be the heirs of the natural daughter of Kadarappa, viz., Nirmala. Allegedly, she was adopted by Obalappa during his life time. Kadarappa died in 1961 leaving seven sons and one daughter Nirmala, whose heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiffs claimed themselves, she died in the year 1999. The children of Kadarappa, Gurudas and Others, and their sons, Sagunarthy and Shivarthy, are the Appellants in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 12 of 2006 and 843-44 of 2006 respectively.
4. The properties involve Survey No. 97/2 Old No. 46-C, Doddabylakhana, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore and Survey No. 66 and 75/1, Sarakki,
Dalpat Kumar and Another v. Prahlad Singh and Others
S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd.
Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Another v. M.S.S. Food Products
Bina Murlidhar Hemdev and Others v. Kanhaiyalal Lokram Hemdev and Others
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.
United Commercial Bank v. Bank of India and Others
Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and Others
Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Others v. Coca Cola Co. and Others
Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another v. Netaji Cricket Club and Others
Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.