Case Note & Summary
The appeals before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay arose from an order dated 4 February 2022 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangli in Special Civil Suit No. 387 of 2021. The suit was filed for partition of suit properties. Plaintiff No. 2 was the estranged wife of Defendant No. 1, and Plaintiff No. 1 was their minor son, aged five at filing. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties were joint family properties. According to the family tree, one Babu had six children: two sons, Shivputra and Siddhappa, and four daughters. After Babu's death, the properties would have devolved on the two sons and four daughters. The four daughters executed release deeds, relinquishing their rights. Therefore, plaintiffs contended the two brothers were each entitled to half share. Shivputra had three sons; Siddhappa had one son, Nikhil, who was the husband of Plaintiff No.2. Plaintiff No.1 was the son of Nikhil and Plaintiff No.2. Consequently, Plaintiff No.1 claimed a coparcenary share. Some suit properties were transferred to various purchasers, impleaded as Defendant Nos.7 to 23, and the plaintiffs challenged those sale deeds. In the suit, plaintiffs filed application Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction and Exhibit-92 for status quo. The Trial Court allowed Exhibit-5 and restrained all defendants from selling, creating third party rights, or changing the nature of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. Aggrieved, Defendant No.2 Siddhappa filed Appeal from Order No.500 of 2023, and the legal heirs of Shivputra filed Appeal from Order No.484 of 2023. Both appeals were heard together. Defendant No.2 contended that there was no joint Hindu family; the suit properties were inherited by him as hereditary rights from late Babu Erandole; no right had accrued to his son or grandson during his lifetime; the release deeds executed by the sisters in his favour made those shares self-acquired; the frame of the suit was faulty; the prayer to set aside sale deeds was barred by limitation; and a coparcener could not seek injunction against another coparcener. He also alleged the suit was filed with malafide intention to pressurize his son in matrimonial disputes. The Shivputra branch contended they had no connection with the disputes within Siddhappa's family and that the entire suit property was unnecessarily frozen because of the minor plaintiff's alleged rights. The plaintiffs argued that the suit properties were undisputedly joint family properties yet to be partitioned and that Plaintiff No.1 as a coparcener had a right to seek partition. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 18 October 2023. The text provided does not include the final decision or operative order of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Restraint on Third Party Rights - Not mentioned - Trial Court by order dated 4 February 2022 allowed Exhibit-5 and restrained defendants from creating third party rights or changing nature of suit property during pendency of partition suit; appeals challenged this order as excessive; the appeals were heard together and judgment reserved (Paras 1-2). B) Hindu Joint Family - Partition and Coparcenary Rights - Minor Coparcener's Claim - Not mentioned - Plaintiff No.1 claimed share through father as coparcener in joint family property; defendant denied existence of joint family and contended no right accrued to son or grandson during lifetime of defendant No.2 (Paras 2-3). C) Property Law - Release Deed - Effect on Inherited Share - Not mentioned - Four sisters executed release deeds in favour of defendant No.2; defendant argued the released shares became his self-acquired property, excluding plaintiff; this issue affected plaintiff's prima facie case (Para 3). D) Limitation Act - Setting Aside Sale Deeds - Limitation Bar - Not mentioned - Defendant contended the prayer for setting aside sale deeds was barred by limitation and therefore no temporary injunction should have been granted; this raised question of maintainability (Para 3). E) Civil Procedure - Injunction Against Co-Coparcener - Maintainability - Not mentioned - Defendant argued that even if properties are joint family properties, a coparcener cannot seek injunctive relief against another coparcener; this principle was relied upon to oppose injunction (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court's order dated 4 February 2022 granting temporary injunction restraining defendants from creating third-party rights or changing nature of suit property was justified in a partition suit; whether plaintiff No.1, a minor coparcener, had a prima facie right to seek partition and interim injunction; whether release deeds executed by four sisters in favour of defendant No.2 extinguished the rights of plaintiff; whether the suit for setting aside sale deeds was barred by limitation; whether a coparcener can seek injunction against another coparcener
Law Points
- Joint family property is subject to partition by coparceners
- Release deed may extinguish relinquishing coparcener's share and convert it into self-acquired property of releasee
- A coparcener cannot seek injunctive relief against another coparcener
- Temporary injunction can restrain creation of third party rights or change of nature of suit property
- Prayer to set aside sale deeds may be barred by limitation
