Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
KHATIM REZA, J.
Suresh Kumar Kedia son of Late Ram Gopal Kedia – Appellant
Versus
Nirmal Kumar Kedia son of Late Ram Gopal Kedia – Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No.272 of 2022
Decided on : 03-10-2023
INJUNCTION - PROPERTY DISPUTE - ACT SECTION LIST - Sections of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Sections related to injunctions and property rights - The court discussed the legal principles surrounding the rights of co-sharers in joint family property, emphasizing that a purchaser of a coparcener's undivided interest is not entitled to exclusive possession and can only seek partition. The court highlighted the necessity of maintaining the status quo to prevent irreparable loss and the importance of a prima facie case in granting injunctions. The interpretations of relevant case law influenced the decision to allow the appeal and set aside the trial court's order.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming that the suit house is a joint residential property and that the defendant had no right to sell any part of it to strangers. The defendant-appellant sought an injunction to prevent dispossession by the purchasers of the property, arguing that the sale deeds were forged and ineffective. The trial court rejected the injunction petition, stating the defendant had no prima facie case.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court's rejection of the injunction was flawed, as it did not properly consider the existence of a prima facie case or the potential for irreparable harm to the appellant. The court emphasized the need to maintain the status quo in property disputes involving joint ownership.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in denying the injunction petition by failing to recognize the prima facie case and the balance of convenience in favor of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a purchaser of a coparcener's undivided interest in joint family property cannot claim exclusive possession and must seek partition. It also clarified that the criteria for granting an injunction include the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable loss.
Final Decision: The appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and directed that the status quo be maintained until the final disposal of the suit.
ORDER :
KHATIM REZA, J.
Heard Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Sub Judge-Ist, Teghra, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 97 of 2019 whereby the learned trial court has rejected the injunction petition filed by the defendant-appellant.
3. The plaintiffs-respondents-Ist set filed the suit for declaration that the suit house is the joint residential house of the plaintiff's and the defendant had no right to sell away the suit property or specific portion to any stranger and disturb the residential unit by forceful dispossession at the instance of stranger. Defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 4, son of defendant no. 3, had executed two sale deeds in favour of two different persons (defendant nos. 5 and 6 / respondent nos. 7 and 8). Plaintiffs filed an amendment petition for adding the name of the purchasers as defendant nos. 5 and 6 and also for adding some facts and seeking relief for declaration that two sale deeds dated 07.09.2019 are forged, fabricated, ineffective without consideration and are void.
4. On summon defendant no. 1 appeared and filed his written statement inter alia pleading that the plaintiffs and family members of defendant no. 1 are residing in the suit house which is predominantly a residential house. It is further contended that from the written statement of defendant nos. 2 to 4, it transpires that defendant no. 2 and son of defendant no. 3, namely, Bhaskar Kedia (defendant no. 4) illegally sold the entire house of the suit to defendant nos. 5 and 6 but they never came in possession, rather, they are trying to interfere with the possession of the defendant no. 1 and plaintiffs over the residential house in the suit as also the godown of husk on the ground floor.
5. The alleged sale deeds on the pretext of previous partition in the family of original parties and consequent allotment to the alleged vendors of defendant nos. 5 and 6 is totally false and concocted. There was no partition till date. It is further contended that there was a piece of parti land apart from residential house in the suit property and in view of the dire need of money to meet legal necessity of Lalita Devi Kedia wife of Vijay Kumar Kedia (defendant no. 3) as also Dilip Kumar Kedia (defendant no. 2), the defendant no. 1 on their request with the consent of other co-sharers sold 15 dhurs 10 dhurki out of the parti land to one Vijay Kumar Agarwal and distributed the consideration money of Rs. 25 lacs by giving Rs. 5 lacs to defendant no. 2 and Rs. 20 lacs to defendant no. 3.
6. By virtue of two sale deeds dated 27.09.2019, the entire interest of defendant nos. 2 to 4 was sold to the purchaser namely defendant nos. 5 and 6.
7. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no. 1 filed an injunction petition dated 23.10.2021 in view of apprehended threat of dispossession at the instance of defendant nos. 5 and 6 (the purchasers). It was stated that the defendant no. 1 is running a business of husk on the ground floor of the house and the portion of the property including first floor are being used for residential purpose by the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1appellant and their family members. Any interference in their possession is required to be restrained and status quo is required to be maintained.
8. The plaintiffs filed show cause by supporting the prayer made by defendant no. 1 of injunction on the suit premises. Defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 filed their separate show cause and raised objection with regard to prayer made by defendant no. 1.
9. It is further contended by the defendant no. 1-appellant that defendant nos. 5 and 6 despite valid service of notice, did not appear to oppose the injunction petition.
10. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court rejected the petition by order dated 07.05.2022 whereby the learned court below has held that defend
A purchaser of a coparcener's undivided interest in joint family property is not entitled to exclusive possession and can only seek partition; the court must maintain the status quo to prevent irrepa....
The court emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss when considering the grant of injunction in property disputes.
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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of preemptive right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act and the requirement for evidence to decide the matter.
A permanent injunction cannot be granted against co-owners without establishing clear possession or valid title, especially when title is disputed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the validity of a property transaction during the pendency of a suit is subject to the outcome of the suit, and the Court may grant injunction....
A suit for permanent injunction is maintainable when there is interference with lawful possession, even if ownership is disputed, provided the plaintiff establishes possession.
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
