A temporary injunction against the alienation of property standing in a female member's name cannot be granted based on bald assertions of joint family ownership without prima facie evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8171 OF 2025 (CPC)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1/2024 IN O.S.NO.25729/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LD. LXXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-73) AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is preferred by defendant No. 1 calling in question the order dated 18.10.2025 passed on I.A.No. 1/2024 in OS No. 25729/2024 on the file of LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and restrained the defendants from alienating or creating third party rights over the suit schedule properties pending disposal of the suit.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The suit in OS No. 25729/2024 is filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession in respect of schedule A, B and C properties. The appellant herein is defendant No. 1. The grievance in the present appeal is confined only to schedule ‘C’ property. It is not in dispute that schedule ‘C’ property stands in the name of defendant No. 1 so also reflected in para 10 of the plaint. It is further stated that certain other properties had already been relinquished in favour of the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding the same, the Trial Court has granted an order of injunction in respect of all the suit schedule property including schedule ‘C’ property.

3. Sri Srinivasan Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that schedule ‘C’ property stands in the name of the defendant No. 1 and carries a statutory presumption of absolute ownership under section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘the Act, 1956’ for short). It is contended that in the absence of any prima facie material to show that property is a joint family property, the Trial Court was not justified in restraining the appellant from dealing with her own property.

4. Per contra, Sri M.S.Shyamsundar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-plaintiff seeks to justify the impugned order contending that the property forms part of the joint family estate and that mere standing of the property in the name of a female member is not conclusive and would not fall under the scope and ambit of Section 14. Reliance is placed on the following decisions :

(i) Saurabh Gupta v. Archna Gupta and Others , 2024 SCC Online ALL 2268 (Saurab Gupta)

(ii) Smt. Narasamma and Others vs Smt. Achachamma and Others ² (Narasamma)2012 SCC Online Kar 8314

(iii) Narasamma and Others vs Akkamma and Others³ (Akkamma)2019 SCC Online Kar 3847

(iv) Kumari Sunita vs Manju and Others (Kumari Sunita)⁴2025 SCC Online All 3740

(v) Narasimhan vs Nagendiran and Others (Narasimhan)⁵2017 SCC Online Mad 20079

(vi) K.N.Narayanaswamy vs K.Nanjegowda and Others⁶ (K.N.Narayanaswamy)RSA 2081/2010 DD 2.3.2020

(vii) Chinnappan vs Ramachandran (Chinnappan)⁷1988 (2) LW.544

(viii) Exotic Mile Private Limited vs DPAC Ventures LLP⁸ (Exotic Mile)Commercial Appeal 617/2025, DD 24.11.2025

(ix) Shaifali Gupta vs Vidya Devi Gupta and Others⁹ (Shaifali Gupta)SLP (Civil) 4673/2023

(x) Mukatlal vs Kailash Chand (D) Through Lrs and Others, (Mukatlal)2024 SCC Online SC 964

(xi) Gangaiah vs Venkatappa and Others, (Gangaiah)RSA 196/2014, DD 24.04.201