Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from an order dated 4 February 2022 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangli, allowing an application at Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction in Special Civil Suit No. 387 of 2021. The suit was filed by a minor son, Adwait, through his mother and natural guardian Shubhangi, and by Shubhangi herself, seeking partition of suit properties and challenging various sale deeds executed in favour of Defendant Nos. 7 to 23. The plaintiffs alleged that the suit properties were undivided joint Hindu family properties. According to the family tree, the common ancestor Babu had two sons, Shivputra and Siddhappa, and four daughters. The four daughters executed release deeds relinquishing their rights, and the plaintiffs claimed that consequently Shivputra and Siddhappa were entitled to half share each. Plaintiff No. 1, Adwait, being the minor son of Siddhappa's son Nikhil, claimed a 1/6th share in the joint family properties. The defendants denied the existence of a joint Hindu family and contended that the properties had been inherited by Siddhappa as his hereditary rights, and that during Siddhappa's lifetime no right accrued to Nikhil or Adwait. They further argued that the release deeds in Siddhappa's favour made those shares self-acquired property, that the suit was barred by limitation, that a coparcener cannot seek injunction against another coparcener, and that the suit was filed with malafide intention due to matrimonial disputes between Nikhil and Shubhangi. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, submitted that the properties were joint family properties yet to be partitioned, that Adwait as a coparcener had a right to seek partition, and that the defendants were attempting to dispose of the joint family properties to exclude his rights. The Trial Court had restrained the defendants from creating third party rights or changing the nature of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The High Court, in these appeals, examined the limited issue of whether temporary injunction could be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. It observed that the case was unique where a five-year-old son and his mother sued father, grandfather and other family members for partition. The court noted that if the theory of joint family was accepted, Adwait and other defendants would be coparceners, and the key question was whether one coparcener can seek injunctive relief against other coparceners. It referred to Sunil Kumar v. Ram Parkash, (1988) 2 SCC 77, which held that in a joint Hindu Mitakshara family, a son acquires by birth an interest equal to that of the father in ancestral property, and the father as karta has power to alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate. The judgment excerpt does not include the final operative order, but the court's analysis focused on the maintainability of injunction in a coparcenary context. The appeals were heard together and reserved on 18 October 2023, pronounced on 26 October 2023.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Restraining Alienation of Joint Family Property - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - In a partition suit filed by a minor coparcener and his mother, the Trial Court granted temporary injunction restraining defendants from selling, creating third party rights, or changing nature of suit property during pendency of suit - The appellate court examined whether such injunction is maintainable given that plaintiff is a coparcener and issues of joint family status and exact share are for final adjudication - Held that the limited issue before appellate court is correctness of temporary injunction, not final share determination (Paras 1-2, 8). B) Hindu Law - Coparcenary Rights - Right to Seek Partition and Injunction Against Other Coparceners - General Principles of Hindu Law (Mitakshara) - Plaintiff claimed coparcenary right by birth in ancestral property; defendants argued that a coparcener cannot seek injunction against another coparcener - Court noted that while a coparcener is entitled to seek partition of undivided joint family property, the question whether other coparceners can be injuncted from dealing with property during adjudication is key - Referred to Sunil Kumar v. Ram Parkash for principles governing karta's power to alienate joint family property for legal necessity, benefit of estate, or antecedent debt - Held that the law on this point is central to answering the appeal (Paras 9-10). C) Hindu Law - Release Deed - Effect on Self-Acquired Property - General Principles of Hindu Law - Defendant Siddhappa contended that release deeds executed by sisters in his favour made those shares self-acquired property, in which his son or grandson cannot claim any right - Plaintiffs contended that release by sisters enured to the benefit of both brothers and did not make the shares self-acquired - The issue of effect of release deeds on coparcenary character was raised and left for final adjudication - Held that this issue is to be decided at trial, not at interim stage (Paras 3, 6, 9). D) Civil Procedure - Limitation - Prayer for Setting Aside Sale Deeds - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Defendant argued that the prayer for setting aside sale deeds was barred by limitation and therefore no temporary injunction should be granted - Court did not finally decide the limitation issue but considered it within the context of interim relief - Held that limitation is a matter for trial and cannot conclusively determine interim injunction at this stage (Paras 3, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a coparcener can seek temporary injunction against other coparceners from alienating joint family property during the pendency of a partition suit.
Law Points
- A coparcener is entitled to seek partition of undivided joint family property
- but whether other coparceners can be injuncted from dealing with property during adjudication is a key question
- in a Mitakshara joint Hindu family
- a son acquires by birth an interest equal to that of the father in ancestral property
- the karta has power to alienate joint family property for legal necessity
- benefit of the estate
- or meeting an antecedent debt
- temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC restrains defendants from creating third party rights or changing nature of suit property during pendency of suit
