Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against an interim injunction order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Yavatmal, in M.J.C. No. 40 of 2014. The appellant, Prashant Bhagwandas Bajoriya, challenged the order dated 16.8.2014 which restrained creation of third party rights in disputed property and withdrawal of amounts from a Savings Bank Account. The background facts relate to M.J.C No. 62 of 2008 filed for grant of Probate/Letter of Administration, which was allowed on 24.2.2012. The appellant alleged that the Letter of Administration was obtained by fraud, and that the allottees (wife and son of Bharat Bajoria) were likely to sell the properties and withdraw deposited sums. The appellant raised objections that the proceeding under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act was not tenable and that the court had no jurisdiction to grant interim injunction in view of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act does not bar the grant of interim injunction in proceedings under the Indian Succession Act, as the court has inherent power to protect the property pending final adjudication. The court noted that the objections regarding maintainability could be considered at the final stage. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the interim order was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Succession Law - Interim Injunction in Probate Proceedings - Section 383 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 41(b) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The trial court granted interim injunction restraining creation of third party rights and withdrawal of bank amounts in a proceeding under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The appellant contended that Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act bars such injunction. The High Court held that Section 41(b) does not apply to proceedings under the Succession Act, as the court has inherent power to grant interim relief to protect property pending final adjudication. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant interim injunction under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, despite the bar under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The interim order dated 16.8.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Yavatmal, is confirmed.
Law Points
- Section 41(b) of Specific Relief Act
- 1963 does not bar grant of interim injunction in probate proceedings under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act
- 1925
- Court can grant interim relief to protect property pending final adjudication
- Objections to maintainability of proceeding under Section 383 can be considered at final stage.
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (08) 143
Appeal Against Order No.107 of 2014
Mr. Firdos Mirza for the Appellant, Mr. S.C. Bhalerao for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
Prashant Bhagwandas Bajoriya
Smt. Bharti Bharat Bajoriya, Chetan Bharat Bajoriya, Smt. Sushilabai Bhagwandas Bajoriya
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against interim injunction order in a proceeding under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the interim injunction order dated 16.8.2014 passed by the trial court.
Filing Reason
The appellant contended that the trial court had no jurisdiction to grant interim injunction in view of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that the proceeding under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act was not tenable.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Yavatmal) had granted interim injunction on 16.8.2014 in M.J.C. No. 40 of 2014, restraining creation of third party rights and withdrawal of bank amounts.
Issues
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant interim injunction under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, despite the bar under Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act bars the grant of injunction in proceedings under the Succession Act.
The respondents contended that the court has inherent power to grant interim relief to protect property pending final adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 does not bar the grant of interim injunction in proceedings under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, as the court has inherent power to protect property pending final adjudication. Objections regarding maintainability can be considered at the final stage.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge is to the order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Yavatmal (trial Court) granting interim injunction dt.16.8.2014 below Exh.5 in M.J.C. No. 40 of 2014.
The provision of section 41 (b) of the Specific Relief Act lays down the circumstances under which injunction cannot be granted. However, the court has inherent power to grant interim relief to protect the property pending final adjudication.
Procedural History
M.J.C No. 62 of 2008 was filed for grant of Probate/Letter of Administration, allowed on 24.2.2012. Subsequently, M.J.C. No. 40 of 2014 was filed under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act, wherein the trial court granted interim injunction on 16.8.2014. The appellant filed Appeal Against Order No.107 of 2014 challenging the interim order.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Succession Act, 1925: 383
- Specific Relief Act, 1963: 41(b)
