Procedural irregularities in the registration of marriage do not invalidate a marriage if supported by prima facie evidence of relationship, and the granting of temporary injunctions must consider potential irreparable harm.

JUDGMENT :

(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.)

These four Misc. First Appeals are preferred independently by the defendants in the suit, assailing the legality and propriety of the common order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Benglauru, sitting at CCH No.26 on I.A.No.1, 2, 4 and 6 filed in OS No.7645/2023. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the applications filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC thereby, granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or alienating or encumbering the suit B-schedule property and simultaneously dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC seeking to vacate the said injunctive order.

2. The factual matrix reveal that, the respondent herein by name Mrs. Tanzia Bano alias Tanzia Banu filed a suit for declaration, partition and injunction against the appellants, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of late Imran Khan M.S., the son of appellants/defendants. Plaintiffs' principal contention is that, she, during the subsistence of her marriage transferred substantial amounts both in Indian and US Currencies to her husband's account and those funds were subsequently utilized by the first defendant i..e her father-in-law to acquire the suit schedule property. She has further averred that, suit property was agreed to be purchased in the name of defendant no.1 merely as a matter of convenience, since the plaintiff and her husband were then residing abroad, with an assurance that, it would eventually be transferred back to them. It is also the categorical assertion of the plaintiff that, she has remained in possession of the suit schedule property even after demise of her husband on 20.6.2023 and that attempts are being made by the defendants to illegally dispossess her and to alienate the property.

3. The appellants have disputed the marital status of the plaintiff with their deceased son and have categorically denied her claim over the property or her possession thereof. They contend that, the purchase of the property was made entirely from the funds of defendant no.1 and that the plaintiff at best had been permitted to temporarily stay in the property during the period of her husband's illness and had no legal or possessory right therein.

4. The learned trial Court has passed the impugned order which is challenged in these appeals by the defendants.

5. It is argued by the counsel for the appellants that, no such marriage has taken place in between their son Imran Khan and the plaintiff. It was defendant no.1 who contributed independently to purchase the suit property. According to the appellants, the learned Trial Court is not justified in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the provisions Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 and submits that, no such marriage has been certified by the authority and mere production of document executed before the notary is not sufficient to prove the marital status. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the findings of the trial Court, so also the serious objections raised to the application filed by the defendants.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent justified the reasons assigned by the trial Court and submits that, dispute started only after demise of her late husband Imran Khan. It was she and her husband sent the money both in Indian currency as well as US currency, that was utilized by the defendant no.1 to purchase the schedule property. According to the learned c