Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sandeep V.Marne, J.
Baburao Shivputra Erandole - Appellant
Versus
Kumar Adwait Nikhil Erandole - Respondent
Appeal From Order No. 484, 500 of 2023, Interim Application No. 12952, 12975 of 2023
Decided On : 26-10-2023
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - PARTITION OF JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, SECTIONS 38, 41 - The court discussed the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, particularly Sections 38 and 41, which outline the conditions under which a temporary injunction may be granted. It emphasized that a coparcener cannot seek an injunction against another coparcener regarding joint family property, as they have adequate remedies available to claim their share. The court concluded that the trial court erred in granting a blanket injunction against all defendants, as it would prevent necessary transactions for legal necessity or benefit of the estate. The court modified the injunction to apply only to a specific property, ensuring some protection for the plaintiff while allowing the defendants to manage their interests.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, consisting of a mother and her minor son, filed a suit for partition of joint family properties against the defendants, who are family members. The trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from creating third-party rights or altering the nature of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The defendants appealed against this order, arguing that the plaintiffs had no valid claim to the properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's blanket injunction was inappropriate as it restricted the defendants' rights to manage their property. It acknowledged the complexities of the family relationships and the claims made by the plaintiffs but determined that the plaintiffs had sufficient legal remedies available to them without the need for a broad injunction.
Issues: Whether a coparcener can seek a temporary injunction against another coparcener regarding joint family property; whether the trial court erred in granting a blanket injunction restraining all defendants from dealing with the suit properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a coparcener does not have the right to seek an injunction against another coparcener concerning joint family property, as they can seek partition and other remedies. The court emphasized that the power of a Karta to manage joint family property includes the ability to alienate it for legal necessity, and a blanket injunction would hinder this right.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the trial court's order granting a blanket temporary injunction was set aside. The court modified the injunction to apply only to a specific property, allowing the defendants to manage their other properties.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
SANDEEP V.MARNE, J. - Challenge in the present appeals is to the order dtd. 4/2/2022 passed by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangli allowing application at Exhibit-5 for grant of temporary injunction. By its order, the Trial Court has restrained the Defendants from creating third party rights or changing nature of the suit property during pendency of the suit.
2. Plaintiff No. 2 is the estranged wife of Defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 is her son, who was aged 5 years on the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiffs have filed Special Civil Suit No.387 of 2021 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli for partition of the suit properties. As per the family tree pointed out in para 2 of the plaint, Babu had 6 children - two sons named Shivputra and Siddhappa and four daughters. After death of Babu, the suit property would have devolved on the two sons and 4 daughters. However, it appears that the 4 daughters have executed Release Deed releasing their rights in respect of the suit properties. It is Plaintiff's case that on account of release of rights by 4 sisters, the two brothers Shivputra and Siddhappa are entitled to - share each in the suit property. As per the family tree, Shivputra has three sons and Siddhappa has one son. Siddhappa's son Nikhil is the husband of the Plaintiff No.2-Shubhangi. Plaintiff No.1-Adwait is son of Nikhil and Shubhangi. This is how, Plaintiff Shubhangi claims 1/6th share of Adwait in the suit properties. It appears that some of the suit properties have been transferred in favour of various purchasers (Defendant Nos.7 to 23) from time to time. Therefore, in addition to seeking partition of the suit properties by impleading Nikhil, his father Siddhappa as well as the entire branch of Shivputra, Plaintiffs have also challenged various sale deeds executed in favour of Defendant Nos.7 to 23. In that suit, Plaintiff filed Application at Exhibit-5 seeking temporary injunction. It appears that she additionally filed application at Exhibit-92 seeking status-quo in respect of the suit properties. The Trial Court has passed order dtd. 4/2/2022 granting temporary injunction in favour of Plaintiff restraining all the Defendants, from selling or creating any third party rights or changing nature of suit property during pendency of the suit. Defendant No.2 Siddhappa is aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court and has instituted Appeal from Order No.500 of 2023. Similarly, the branch of Shivputra is also aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court and they have instituted Appeal from Order No. 484 of 2023. Both the Appeals are taken up for hearing together.
3. Mr. Kulkarni would appear on behalf of the Appellant - Siddhappa in Appeal from Order No.500 of 2023. He would draw my attention to the written statement filed by the Defendant No.2-Siddhappa denying existence of joint Hindu family. He has contended that the suit properties have been inherited by Siddhappa towards his hereditary rights from late Babu Erandole. That during the lifetime of Defendant No.2-Siddhappa, no right is yet created in favour of Defendant No.1-Nikhil. That therefore there is no question of his grandson (Plaintiff No.1) seeking partition of the suit properties. Mr. Kulkarni would further submit that, in any case, release of rights of their respective shares by sisters in Siddhappa's favour by execution of release deeds, make those shares self-acquired property of Siddhappa, in which his son or grandson cannot claim any right. That such release is not executed by the sisters in favour of son-Nikhil or grandson-Adwait. Therefore neither Nikhil nor Adwait would have any right in those shares relinquished in Siddhappa's favour. He would submit that the frame of the suit itself is faulty and in such circumstances, no temporary injunction could have been granted in favour of the Plaintiffs. He would further submit that the prayer for setting aside sale deeds is barred by limitation and in such circums
A coparcener cannot seek a temporary injunction against another coparcener regarding joint family property, as they have adequate legal remedies available to claim their share.
Injunction – Court in exercise of power of granting ad interim injunction has to preserve subject matter of suit by status quo for the time being – If any alienation is made, it would be subject to d....
Joint family properties must be protected in partition suits, ensuring the rights of co-sharers against potential losses during ongoing legal disputes.
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 discr....
To obtain an interim injunction, a party must demonstrate a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience favoring the injunction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
