Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction does not warrant interference with concurrent findings absent error.

The petitioner sued for declaration, partition and separate possession, claiming that the suit property was joint family/Matruka property and that no partition had taken place.

He sought a temporary injunction restraining respondent No. 7 from carrying out construction on the property.

The respondents disputed the claim, asserting that respondent No. 1 had purchased the property with his own funds, sold it to respondent No. 7 and delivered possession; they also stated that the family had partitioned other properties.

The Trial Court dismissed the injunction application, and the First Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

The petitioner then challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the courts below erred in refusing temporary injunction against respondent No. 7’s proposed construction on the suit property

2. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the concurrent orders dismissing the injunction application and appeal

Article 227 of the Constitution confers supervisory jurisdiction, and the scope of interference under it is limited.

The Court relied on Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, in support of that principle.

The judgment did not set out a separate statutory test for granting temporary injunctions.

The Court noted that the respondents disputed the petitioner’s claim of joint ownership, asserted that respondent No. 7 was in possession under a sale by respondent No. 1, and alleged that the petitioner had omitted to disclose a partition concerning other family properties.

It further recorded that the courts below had found that the petitioner had failed to establish that the suit properties were ancestral properties of late Mashaq Sab.

Applying the limited supervisory standard under Article 227, the Court found no error warranting interference with the concurrent orders.

The writ petition was dismissed.