Case Note & Summary
The present order arises from an Interim Application filed by the plaintiff, Variinder @ Rajan, in Suit No. 343 of 2022 before the High Court of Bombay. The plaintiff, one of five children of the late Darrshan Vilayati Khanna and late Shashikala Khanna, sought a declaration that he is entitled to an undivided 1/5th share in the suit properties—a mix of immovable properties including shops, offices, bungalows, and garages located in Chembur, Mumbai, and Navi Mumbai—on the ground that they constitute properties of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and/or the estate of his deceased mother. He challenged various registered Gift Deeds executed by his late father in 2012 and 2013 in favour of some of the defendants (his siblings) and a subsequent Gift Deed in 2021, contending that as HUF properties, the father could not validly gift them without his consent. He also impugned the wills purportedly executed by his parents. The defendants, led by his brother Narresh Khanna and other siblings, disputed the very existence of an HUF, asserting that the properties were self-acquired by the parents and validly disposed of. They placed heavy reliance on an affidavit dated 8 July 2001 executed by the plaintiff himself, wherein he had sworn that all properties of his parents were their self-acquired properties, not ancestral, and that neither he nor his siblings had any right, title, or claim to them. The plaintiff admitted executing the affidavit but claimed that he and his siblings were required by their father to sign it only as a protective measure for family properties, with an oral assurance that it would never be acted upon. The plaint listed twelve immovable properties (Exhibit G), including shop premises in Acharya Commercial Centre, bungalows in Mihishad Co-op Society, garages in Kamal Phool Society, an office in Navi Mumbai, and a workshop in Chembur. The plaintiff claimed that some were acquired by the mother, some by the father, and some jointly, but all became joint family properties. The defendants contended that the mother had nominated the father, and the properties were transmitted to him after her death in 2003, and that the father had dealt with them during his lifetime. The 2001 affidavit became a pivotal document, with the plaintiff arguing it was executed under coercion and the defendants asserting it constituted an admission barring any claim. The Interim Application specifically sought the appointment of a Court Receiver over the suit properties and a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating, encumbering, or creating third-party rights, and from dispossessing the plaintiff from Bungalow Nos. 14 and 14A where he claimed to reside. The court heard the parties and reserved the matter on 27 April 2026. The order was pronounced on 27 July 2026, but the available part of the order abruptly ends after narrating the factual background and does not contain any findings, reasoning, or operative directions. Thus, the final outcome of the interim application is not known from the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief by way of appointment of Court Receiver and temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or dealing with the suit properties pending final disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Hindu Undivided Family property
- self-acquired property
- coparcenary rights
- partition suit
- gift deed validity
- testamentary disposition
- interim injunction
- appointment of Court Receiver
- suppression of material facts
- legal effect of affidavit
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- family settlement
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 212
Interim Application No. 4623 of 2022 in Suit No. 343 of 2022
Mr. Ghanshyam Mishra, Ms. Ekta Bhalerao, Mr. Sujeet Chaudhary, Mr. Nirman Sharma, Mr. Ansh Karnawat, Mr. Ashish Mishra, Ms. Preeti D. Madan, Ms. Kavita Sharma, Ms. Kritika Joshi
Variinder @ Rajan s/o Darrshan Khanna
Narresh Darrshan Khanna & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for declaration, partition, and injunction concerning immovable and movable properties claimed as Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) properties and/or estate of the deceased mother.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff seeks appointment of Court Receiver and temporary injunction restraining defendants from alienating, encumbering, or disposing of suit properties and from dispossessing him from Bungalow Nos. 14 and 14A, Chembur, Mumbai.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff claimed entitlement to 1/5th undivided share in suit properties as coparcener, alleging late father illegally gifted HUF properties to other siblings and executed invalid wills excluding him.
Issues
Whether the suit properties constitute HUF properties or self-acquired properties of the late parents.
Whether the registered Gift Deeds executed by the late father in 2012-2013 and 2021 are valid and binding.
Whether the 2001 affidavit executed by the plaintiff is binding and estops him from claiming any share in the suit properties.
Whether the plaintiff suppressed material facts by not disclosing the 2001 affidavit in the plaint or interim application.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interlocutory relief by way of injunction and appointment of Court Receiver pending the suit.
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff contended that all suit properties are coparcenary/HUF properties of Khanna HUF, and he has an undivided 1/5th share by birth.
Plaintiff challenged the gift deeds as void because the late father as Karta could not gift HUF properties without consent of all coparceners.
Plaintiff admitted executing the 2001 affidavit but claimed it was signed under oral assurance from the father that it would not be acted upon and was for family protection.
Defendants argued that the suit properties are self-acquired by the parents and not HUF properties, and the late father validly gifted them.
Defendants relied on the 2001 affidavit where plaintiff unequivocally acknowledged that the properties were self-acquired and he had no claim.
Defendants alleged that plaintiff deliberately suppressed the 2001 affidavit from the court in the plaint and application, which amounted to material suppression.
Judgment Excerpts
The Plaintiff has instituted the present Suit seeking, inter alia, a declaration that he is entitled to an undivided 1/5th share in the immovable and movable properties more particularly described in Exhibits “G” and “H” to the Plaint (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “suit properties”), on the premise that the said properties constitute the properties of a Hindu Undivided Family (“HUF”) and/or the estate of his deceased mother.
I say that all the properties, movable as well as immovable, belong to our parents, as mentioned above. The said properties are acquired by them from their self-earnings. It is not their ancestral property. Neither myself nor any of my brothers or sister or anyone claiming through us has any right or claim whatsoever in our said parents properties. We shall also have no right or claim in any other property, movable or immovable, that our parents may hereafter acquire.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed Suit No. 343 of 2022 seeking partition and declaration. Plaintiff thereafter filed Interim Application No. 4623 of 2022 seeking appointment of Court Receiver and temporary injunction. The application was heard and reserved for orders on 27 April 2026. The order was pronounced on 27 July 2026, but the available text does not contain the operative decision.
