IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Female Hindu succession – On death of a coparcener leaving behind Class-I female heirs, interest of coparcener in coparcenary property would devolve by testamentary or intestate succession and not by survivorship.
(2) Partition – Once share of coparcenary was defined by a preliminary decree, actual division of property by metes and bounds was not necessary to operate as embargo on right of a female heir who had got absolute ownership by force of law to transfer her right, title and interest in the property.

JUDGMENT

By the impugned order dated 8.9.2021, prayer of the plaintiff-appellant, for ad interim injunction was refused by the learned Trial Court.

2. It would be apt to look at the genealogy of the parties and the date and events prior to the suit to appreciate the nature of dispute between the parties.

3. One Ladu S/o Jamman died in 1976 leaving behind three sons; (I) Sheola @ Sheo Narain; (ii) Nathu Ram; and (iii) Om Prakash. Nathu Ram and Om Prakash brought a suit under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act before revenue court for declaration that property purchased in the name of Shiv Narain by Ladu Ram was from the income of joint family funds and as such was joint family property. Further prayer was that the joint family property in the name of Ladu Ram and Shiv Narain be divided amongst three brothers equally and an injunction be issued restraining the defendant Shiv Narain from dealing with the property or causing obstruction in enjoyment of the same by the plaintiffs. The suit was ultimately decreed by judgment dated 22.2.2001 deciding 1/3 share to each of the three brothers in the suit property. Sheo Narain who was defendant in the suit had died during the pendency of the suit and his five sons and a widow were substituted as legal heirs/representatives. Though Sheo Narain had five daughters also but they were not made party in the civil suit. The aggrieved party challenged the trial court judgment in revenue appeal No. 40/2001 under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. By the judgment dated 30.8.2005, the appeal was dismissed, thereafter, the aggrieved defendant challenged the same in Second Appeal No. 4441/2005 under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and this appeal was also dismissed on 19.3.2020.

4. Mangli Devi, the widow of Shiv Narain executed a registered deed of relinquishment dated 30.10.2018 in favour of her one of the sons Shri Ram, respondent No.1. Shri Ram executed a power of attorney on 18.11.2020 in favour of his son Uttam Kumar Sharma, respondent No.2 and Uttam Kumar Sharma sold the property relinqushed by Mangli Devi to Tara Chand Saini, respondent No.3 and Manju Devi, respondent No.4 wife of Tara Chand by two separate registered sale deeds dated 1.1.2021.

5. Sons of late Sheo Narain were Kanhiya Lal (appellants), Ram Narain, Mohanlal, Shrvanlal and Shriram. Kanhaiyalal brought the suit wherein prayer for ad interim injunction was refused. In the civil suit, the prayer was for declaration that the relinquishment deed, power of attorney and sale deeds referred above, were null and void, inoperative as such, fit to be cancelled.

6. In the interim application, prayer was for restraining the defendant respondents, from getting the name of the purchasers recorded in the revenue records. Further prayer was to restrain the defendant-respondents from disturbing the peaceful and cultivating possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land.

7. In the response filed by the respondents, it is stated that in the civil suit, the plaintiff appellant did not come up with clean hands and suppressed the status of the suit for partition wherein plaintiff Kanhaiya Lal was a party. The plaintiff appellant further suppressed the fact that he had filed a civil suit challenging the relinquishment deed executed by mother Mangli Devi in favour of one of her son Sriram who was defendant No.1 in the suit. In that suit, the trial court refused to grant any interim protection in favour of appellant by order dated 9.4.2021. Thereafter Kanhiyalal got another suit instituted by his son Girdhari challenging original partition document of the family property dated 21.10.1980 vide civil suit No. 24/2019. The appellant could not get the order of temporary injunction in Civil Suit No. 24/2019. Thereafter the present suit was filed.

8. Learned Senior counsel Mr. A.K.Bhandari submits that it is unconverted case of the defendant-respondents that the suit property was a coparcenary property of Joint Hindu Mita