Article 227 Review Cannot Reappraise Concurrent Injunction Orders Absent Patent Illegality or Perversity.

The suit properties were ancestral properties. After Sakharam Ghule’s death, his daughter, Krushnabai, was recorded as one of his legal heirs in the revenue records. The defendants later claimed that the properties had been partitioned before 20 December 2004 under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, without including Krushnabai. She sued for partition and separate possession and obtained an interim injunction restraining the defendants from creating third-party interests or carrying out construction on the properties.

Defendant No. 14’s appeal against the injunction was dismissed; he then challenged that decision under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court noted that the injunction had operated since 2016 and that portions of the properties had nevertheless been transferred.

Whether the concurrent orders granting and maintaining the temporary injunction disclosed a patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity warranting interference under Article 227.

Whether the defendants’ claim of a pre-20 December 2004 partition, allegedly supported by public documents, displaced Krushnabai’s prima facie claim to a share and justified interfering with the injunction.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction does not permit the High Court to reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the courts below; interference with discretionary orders is warranted only where they disclose patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity, applying Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1586).

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, recognises a daughter’s coparcenary rights; under Section 6(5), a partition before 20 December 2004 may be recognised, with the explanation addressing the form in which such partition must be evidenced. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma ((2020) 9 SCC 1) recognises that, exceptionally, an oral partition supported by public documents and finally evidenced as if effected by a court decree may satisfy that requirement.

The High Court found no basis to interfere with the concurrent discretionary orders under the limited Article 227 standard.

Krushnabai’s recorded status as Sakharam’s legal heir, coupled with the allegation that her name was omitted from the proceedings before the Tahsildar, supported a strong prima facie challenge to the alleged partition; Vineeta Sharma did not advance the petitioner’s case at the interim stage.

The injunction had remained in force for nearly a decade, and the defendants’ transfers of portions of the properties despite the restraint order further weighed against granting equitable relief and favoured preserving the injunction.

It dismissed the writ petition with costs and discharged the Rule.