Smt. Ramya H R vs Smt. Hemavathi
25 May, 2023
Bench: Hon’ble H.P.Sandesh
Introduction:
Property disputes within families can be emotionally charged and legally complex. In this blog, we delve into a specific legal case involving an appeal challenging an injunction order in a suit for partition. The dispute revolves around ancestral and joint family properties, with the appellants seeking to overturn the injunction that restricts them from alienating the properties or creating encumbrances until the suit is resolved. We explore the arguments presented by both parties and the court’s decision in this contentious matter.
Background:
The appellants, defendants 3 to 5, contested an injunction order that restrained them from disposing of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff, in a suit for partition, alleged that the properties were ancestral and joint family assets, and accused the defendants of attempting to create third-party rights. The plaintiff further claimed that certain properties and vehicles were purchased using joint family income, although registered in the name of the deceased brother of the plaintiff. The defendants, 1 and 2, supported the plaintiff’s application and admitted the joint family nature of the properties.
Arguments and Court Decision:
The appellants’ counsel argued that the trial court had erred in granting the injunction without considering the defendants’ contention that specific properties were self-acquired and not available for partition. They contended that the order, by restraining them from altering the nature of the properties, was flawed and required intervention.
Upon examining the material on record, including the properties involved, the court observed that the question of whether the properties were acquired from joint family funds or self-acquired could only be determined through a full-fledged trial. The court noted that granting the injunction prevented the properties’ alienation, thus avoiding the proliferation of legal proceedings. It further acknowledged that the vehicles mentioned in the suit, if sold to third parties, would be challenging to secure. Consequently, the trial court found a prima facie case and a balance of convenience in favor of granting the injunction.
In the appeal, the court upheld the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that the issue of property nature would be addressed during the trial. It dismissed the appellants’ argument regarding the forcible possession of the vehicles, stating that such matters should be addressed through appropriate legal channels.
Conclusion:
The case highlights the complexities surrounding property disputes within joint families and the significance of establishing a prima facie case during legal proceedings. The court’s decision to maintain the injunction order emphasizes the importance of preserving the status quo until a final determination is made regarding the properties’ ownership and division. While this appeal has been dismissed, the larger dispute concerning family partition will continue to unfold in the trial court, where a comprehensive examination of the facts and evidence will take place.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREEYA S SHEKAR
