The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to prove the nucleus with which property could be acquired under Hindu Law, the application of the principle of lis pendens, and the discretion of the trial court in passing orders of interim injunction.

JUDGMENT

R. G. Avachat, J. - The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 20/6/2020, passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambajogai on application Exh.160, in Special Civil Suit No.5/2012. By the impugned order, the parties to the suit have been directed to maintain status quo as regards alienating, transferring or creating third party interest in respect of the suit properties. Original defendants No.5, 9, 10 and 11 have, therefore, preferred the present appeal.

2. Shri S.V. Adwant, learned counsel for the appellants herein would submit that, it is a suit for partition and separate possession of house and landed properties (55 in number), specifically described in the plaint. The suit dates back to 2012. An application (Exh.5), seeking for injunction, restraining the appellants from creating third party interest in respect of the suit properties was filed along with the suit itself. The plaintiff, elder brother of the appellant No.1, did not urge for hearing of the said application. The trial Court, therefore, in September 2015, passed an order to hear the application (Exh.5) along with the suit. Issues have been framed way back in June 2017. affidavit of evidence was also filed. The plaint, in the meanwhile, came to be amended. For over five years, the plaintiff has been seeking adjournments in the matter for one or the other reason. All of a sudden, an application Exh.160 came to be moved. It is nothing but a replica of application Exh.5. In October 2019, the Court passed the order of status quo without say to the application. Without indicating any reason, the trial Court confirmed the order of status quo vide impugned order.

3. The learned counsel would further submit that, the appellants herein constitute among themselves a joint family.

The appellant No.1 was a meritorious student. He first did M.B.B.S. way back in 1969. He joined the Government service as a Medical Officer. He completed Masters in Surgery, while in service. He successfully passed examination held by the M.P.S.C. for recruitment of Class II Medical Officer. In the course of time, he became Class I Officer. He served on the post of Superintendent Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai and superannuated on the post of Officer on Special Duty in Medical Education and Public Health Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya. Learned counsel would further submit that, the appellant No.3, son of appellant No.1 did Master in Engineering. He had opened up an industry and in the course of time, he diversified his business to construction activities. His mother and his wife have also been well educated. All of the appellants have been Income Tax assessees. The plaint is conspicuously silent to state that the family of the plaintiff and defendants did have surplus nucleus for acquisition of other properties. There is also no pleading and evidence as well to show that, any such nucleus, if any, was applied for acquisition of other properties. The properties acquired by the appellants herein have been their gains of earnings. The properties held by the female members of the family of the appellants are their absolute properties by virtue of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The appellant No.1 had raised loan for acquisition of the properties. Evidence to that effect has been placed on record. According to learned counsel, the concept of blending of a property of the female member of the joint family is unknown to Hindu Law. Whatever properties have been purchased from the plaintiff have been duly paid for. According to learned counsel, the trial Court ought not to have restrained the appellants from exercising right to alienate or deal with the properties they have acquired on their own exertion. Learned counsel, therefore, urged for allowing the appeal.

4. Shri A.D. Gade, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would, on the other hand, submit that, the plaintiff was elder member of the joint family. The family admittedly held number of agricu