Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Rohit and Radha Panbisare, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of suit property, including land Gat no.224 and a house constructed thereon, situated at village Tisgaon, Aurangabad. They also sought a declaration that a sale deed dated 1.9.2022 was null and void and not binding on their share, and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from transferring or alienating the property to the extent of their share. The trial court, by order dated 21.3.2025, granted a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed, and the District Court, Aurangabad, by order dated 8.10.2025, reversed the trial court's order. The High Court, in the present writ petition, examined whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the injunction. The High Court noted that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of joint family property, as the property was ancestral and the plaintiffs were coparceners. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiffs, and they would suffer irreparable loss if the property was alienated during the pendency of the suit. The High Court held that the appellate court had erred in reversing the trial court's discretionary order without proper justification. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's injunction order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rule 1 CPC - Partition Suit - Joint Family Property - The trial court granted injunction restraining defendants from alienating suit property pending suit for partition. The appellate court reversed, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove joint tenancy. The High Court restored the injunction, finding that plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of joint family property and that balance of convenience and irreparable loss favored them. (Paras 1-15) B) Hindu Law - Coparcenary Rights - Section 6 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Joint Family Property - The suit property was ancestral property of the joint Hindu family. Plaintiffs, being sons and wife of defendant no.1, had a right to claim partition and separate possession. The sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favor of other defendants was prima facie not binding on plaintiffs' share. (Paras 4-12) C) Civil Procedure - Appellate Court's Power - Reversal of Discretionary Order - The appellate court ought not to have interfered with the trial court's discretionary order unless it was perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and granted injunction. The appellate court's order was set aside. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court's order granting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC in a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 8.10.2025 passed by the District Court, Aurangabad, and restored the order dated 21.3.2025 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge S.D., Aurangabad granting temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC.
Law Points
- Temporary injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable loss
- joint family property
- partition suit
- Order 39 Rule 1 CPC
- Section 6 Hindu Succession Act
- 1956
- coparcenary rights
