Advocates:
Petitioner:Gaurang Dwivedi , Pranvesh and Sr. Advocate
Respondent: Ajay Sengar , Devansh Misra , Sanjay Agrawal and Shivam Tiwari

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. (!)