2025 Supreme(All) 3772
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
Sunita – Appellant
Versus
Manju and Others – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 2075 of 2024
Decided On : 20-06-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Gaurang Dwivedi, Pranvesh,
For the Respondent: Ajay Sengar, Sanjay Agrawal
In a partition suit, a plaintiff as dominus litus cannot be forced to implead pendente lite purchasers. An injunction should be granted to maintain status quo if failure to do so would lead to irreparable complexity, notwithstanding existing legal doctrines like lis pendens, provided the concealment of facts was not fraudulent.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10, Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Partition suit - Interim injunction - Concealment of facts - Impleadment of pendente lite purchasers - Dominus litus - Discretionary relief of equitable injunction.
(B) Interim Injunction - Principles for grant - Court must consider prima facie case, balance of convenience and potential irreparable loss - Relief of injunction is equitable and flexible, not governed by rigid formulas - Pendente lite transfers are governed by the rule of lis pendens, yet interim protection remains necessary to preserve property status and prevent multi-party litigation - Courts should avoid conducting a mini-trial at the injunction stage.
(C) Parties to Suit - Transferee pendente lite is not a necessary party as a matter of right - It is for the discretion of the court and dependent on the nature of the suit - A plaintiff, acting as dominus litus, cannot be compelled to implead third-party purchasers against whom no specific relief is claimed.
(D) Pleadings and Concealment - Non-disclosure of facts must be accompanied by a fraudulent intent to deceive or gain an unfair advantage to warrant denial of equitable relief - Where undisclosed facts do not alter the nature or consequence of the suit, such omission does not bar the consideration of an injunction.
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff-appellant filed a partition suit requesting interim protection over joint family property. The lower court rejected the injunction, citing the plaintiff's failure to disclose personal agreements to sell regarding the property and the failure to implead new purchasers who acquired interest pendente lite. The appellant challenged this on grounds that she is the dominus litus and that the undisclosed facts were immaterial to the status of the partition claim.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the omission to disclose peripheral agreements did not deceive the court or change the suit’s nature. It further held that third-party purchasers are bound by the principle of lis pendens and are not strictly necessary parties in a partition suit. The plaintiff, as master of the suit, is not bound to sue individuals against whom no relief is sought. To prevent multiplicity of proceedings and irreparable complications at the execution stage, maintaining the property's composition was necessary.
Issues: Whether non-disclosure of certain agreements requires the dismissal of an injunction application; whether third-party purchasers during the suit are necessary parties; and whether a plaintiff can be forced to implead such parties.
Ratio Decidendi: An injunction to maintain status quo in a partition suit is necessary when there is a risk of property alteration, regardless of the rule of lis pendens, to ensure that any potential future decree is not rendered effectively inexecutable.
Result: Appeal allowed; parties directed to maintain status quo regarding the property nature and further alienation.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case:
- Case Details: This is a First Appeal filed by Km. Sunita (Appellant) against Smt. Manju and 9 Others (Respondents) regarding Original Suit No. 356 of 2023 filed for partition. The appeal seeks to set aside the judgment and order dated 16.09.2024 and decree dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Jalaun at Orai, which rejected Temporary Injunction Application No. 6C-2. (!) (!)
- Grounds for Impugned Order: The lower court rejected the temporary injunction application on two main grounds: (1) The appellant concealed facts regarding an agreement to sale executed before filing the suit, implying she did not have "clean hands"; and (2) She failed to implead subsequent purchasers who acquired the property via sale deeds during the pendency of the suit. (!)
- Appellant's Arguments: Counsel for the appellant argued that the agreement to sale was executed without the right of possession and the sale deed was not yet executed, thus not affecting the coparcener's right. They contended that non-disclosure does not change the nature of a partition suit between family members. Regarding subsequent purchasers, they argued the appellant is the dominus litus (master of the suit) and cannot be forced to implead parties against whom she has not claimed relief, as subsequent purchasers can file separate impleadment applications. (!)
- Respondents' Arguments: Counsel for the respondents argued that the appellant concealed material facts (pre-suit agreement and a power of attorney agreement during the suit), violating the principle of "unclean hands." They further argued that subsequent purchasers are necessary parties because once a sale deed is executed, they must be impleaded to protect their rights under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. They also stated that interim injunction against co-sharers requires fair conduct, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, which were absent here. (!) (!) (!)
- Court's Finding on Concealment of Facts: The Court held that while non-disclosure is generally frowned upon, in this specific case, the concealment did not change the nature or consequences of the suit, which remains a partition suit between family members. The Court noted that both parties had concealed facts, and the cited precedents regarding "unclean hands" were not directly applicable as the facts did not bear upon the consequences of the suit in the same manner as previous cases. (!) (!) (!)
- Court's Finding on Subsequent Purchasers: The Court ruled that a transferee pendente lite is not a necessary party as a matter of right. The impleadment depends on facts and circumstances. Since this is a partition suit and the appellant did not seek relief against the subsequent purchasers, she cannot be forced to implead them. (!) (!) (!)
- Validity of Partition Rights: Addressing objections under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 regarding the appellant's coparcenary status, the Court relied on Vineeta Sharma to hold that the appellant's status as a co-parcener cannot be denied at this stage and requires evidence to be decided during the trial. (!) (!) (!)
- Grant of Interim Injunction: The Court established that granting interim protection is discretionary and based on three principles: (1) Prima facie case, (2) Balance of convenience, and (3) Irreparable loss. The Court found that without interim protection, the purpose of the partition suit would be defeated due to multiple transfers and potential alterations to the property. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Decision: The Court set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.09.2024 and the decree dated 19.09.2024 as unsustainable. The appeal was allowed. (!) (!)
- Directives: Both parties are directed to maintain the status quo regarding the nature of the property. They are prohibited from executing any agreement to sale, sale deed, or creating third-party rights until the final disposal of Original Suit No. 356 of 2023. (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context for appeals against the rejection of interim injunctions in partition suits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding non-disclosure of facts, impleadment of transferees, and requirements for interim injunctions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's preliminary determination that immaterial non-disclosure does not necessarily defeat interim relief in partition suits. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. applicability of the 'clean hands' doctrine regarding suppression of material facts in judicial proceedings. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. transferees pendente lite are not necessary parties; plaintiff as dominus litus cannot be forced to implead them. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. recognition of coparcenary rights under the hindu succession act, 1956. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. criteria for granting interim injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and prevention of irreparable loss. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. final order: quashing the impugned rejection order and directing maintenance of status quo on property nature. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Pranvesh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Devansh Mishra and Sri Shivam Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
2. Present appeal has been filed with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 16.09.2024 and decree dated 19.09.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalaun at Orai in Original Suit No. 356 of 2023 ( Km. Sunita Vs. Smt. Manju and Others ) and also to allow the Temporary Injunction Application No. 6C-2.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is being decided at the admission stage itself.
4. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for partition being Original Suit No. 356 of 2023 was filed by the appellant-plaintiff on 11.10.2023 against the respondents-defendants for partition along with 6C-2 application. After argument, 6C-2 application was rejected vide impugned order 16.09.2024. Hence the present appeal.
5. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant submitted that impugned order has been passed basically on two grounds. The first ground is that appellant-plaintiff has concealed certain facts and she has not disclosed the fact regarding agreement to sale executed by her before filing of the suit, therefore, she was not with clean hands. The second ground was that she has not impleaded the subsequent purchasers as defendants in the suit.
6. So far as first ground is concerned, learned Senior Counsel has argued that agreement to sale was executed without right of possession and till date sale deed has not been executed, therefore, right of no coparcener is affected. He next submitted that non discloser of such fact would not affect the nature and consequence of suit. Therefore, this cannot said to be a concealment of fact. So far as second ground is concerned, he argued that total eight sale deeds were executed by the respondent-defendant during the pendency of the suit and appellant- plaintiff was having no knowledge of that, therefore, there is no occasion for the appellant-plaintiff to implead the subsequent purchasers as party in the suit. Immediately after knowing about the execution of the sale deed, she has brought those documents along with records before the court. It is also his argument that appellant-plaintiff is dominus litus i.e. master of suit, therefore, she cannot be forced to implead anyone as defendant in the suit. He next submitted that appellant- plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the persons in favour of whom, sale deeds were executed, therefore, they are not the necessary party in the suit. He also submitted that subsequent purchasers are having full right to file imple
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
