Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Akhil Mansuklal Mehta, and the respondent, Sheetal Deepak Karamchandani, jointly purchased three properties between 1996 and 1998: (1) property at Shirdi (old survey No. 51/4, new 51/5) for Rs. 4,50,000; (2) property admeasuring 18 R out of 44 R from survey No. 51/1 at Shirdi for Rs. 1,26,000; and (3) property at Vihigaon, Thane (survey Nos. 351 and 352). The petitioner claimed that due to financial crises, he sold his 50% share in the third property to one Prakash Dwarkadas Jhunjhunwala on 25.2.2011, while the respondent's share remained. The respondent lodged a complaint with Kasara police station on 20.11.2011, leading to FIR No. I-13 of 2012 on 9.3.2012, and the petitioner was arrested on 17.3.2012. He was released on bail on 12.4.2012 by the Sessions Judge at Kalyan. The respondent also filed a second complaint at Shirdi police station on 7.3.2012, alleging that the petitioner was trying to dispose of the first and second properties fraudulently. The respondent then filed R.C.S. No. 330 of 2012 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahata, seeking partition and permanent injunction. In that suit, the respondent filed an application (Exh.17) for temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating or creating third party interests in the suit properties. The trial court allowed the application by order dated 20.7.2012, granting the injunction. The petitioner challenged this order by way of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously based on the material on record, and that the petitioner had not made out any case for interference under Article 227. The petition was dismissed, and the interim relief granted earlier was vacated.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC - Co-owner's right to seek injunction against another co-owner - The trial court granted injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating or creating third party interests in the suit properties, holding that the respondent had made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience was in her favour. The High Court declined to interfere, observing that the trial court's order was based on proper appreciation of material on record and did not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. (Paras 2-10) B) Property Law - Co-ownership - Partition Suit - Jointly purchased properties - The dispute pertained to three properties purchased jointly by the petitioner and respondent between 1996 and 1998. The respondent alleged that the petitioner was attempting to dispose of the properties fraudulently. The court held that in a suit for partition, a co-owner is entitled to protect the suit property from being alienated by another co-owner pending adjudication of rights. (Paras 3-5) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference with discretionary orders - The High Court reiterated that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not extend to reappreciating evidence or substituting its own discretion for that of the trial court unless the order is perverse or without jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed as no such infirmity was found. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating or creating third party interests in the suit properties pending disposal of the suit for partition and permanent injunction.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order granting temporary injunction. The court held that the trial court had exercised its discretion properly based on the material on record and that no interference was warranted under Article 227. The interim relief granted earlier was vacated.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- co-owner rights
- partition suit
- discretionary order
- interference by High Court under Article 227
