### Civil Court Jurisdiction to Grant Partition Not Ousted by Section 34 of SARFAESI Act Overview: The Bombay High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a secured creditor (Tourism Finance Corporation of India) challenging a District Court's temporary injunction. The injunction restrained the creditor from creating third-party interests in an ancestral property to the extent of a daughter's (coparcener's) share, despite ongoing recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act. Key Legal Issue: Whether the bar on Civil Court jurisdiction under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act applies to a partition suit filed by a person (non-borrower/non-guarantor) asserting coparcenary rights in the secured asset. Court’s Reasoning and Ruling: 1. Jurisdictional Bar: Following the Supreme Court’s clarification in *Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain (2025)*, the Court held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) lacks the power to partition property. Therefore, Section 34 does not oust the Civil Court’s jurisdiction where a third party (other than the borrower/guarantor) seeks to enforce civil rights like partition and separate possession. 2. Ancestral Character: Based on revenue records (Mutation Entry No. 134), the Court prima facie found the suit properties were ancestral. As a coparcener, the Plaintiff’s right exists by birth, and subsequent mortgages by her father (Defendant No. 1) could not unilaterally extinguish her undivided interest. 3. Breach of Injunction: The Court noted that the Petitioner sold the property despite the District Court’s restraint. Relying on *Keshrimal Jivji Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra*, the Court reiterated that any transfer made in willful disobedience of an injunction order is illegal, invalid, and confers no right on the transferee. 4. Due Process: The "due process of law" required to sell the property must be qua the Plaintiff’s share. Since the Plaintiff was not a party to the loan or the security creation, enforcing the security interest without adjudicating her share via the partition suit was impermissible. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the injunction, confirming that coparcenary rights in ancestral property must be protected by civil courts even when such properties are subject to SARFAESI recovery proceedings.

The Petitioner, a secured creditor, sanctioned financial facilities to a firm where Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (parents of the Plaintiff/Respondent No. 1) were partners and guarantors.

Upon default, the Petitioner initiated measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, taking symbolic possession and obtaining an order for physical possession.

The Plaintiff filed a suit (RCS No. 305 of 2023) for partition and separate possession, claiming the suit properties were ancestral coparcenary property.

The Trial Court initially rejected the temporary injunction, holding only one property was ancestral and the suit was for partial partition.

On appeal, the District Court reversed this, restraining the Petitioner from creating third-party interests in the Plaintiff's share without due process.

During the pendency of the matter, and despite the injunction, the Petitioner completed an auction sale in favor of Respondent No. 8.

1. Whether the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is barred by Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act in a suit for partition filed by a non-borrower/non-guarantor claiming coparcenary rights.

2. Whether the suit properties were prima facie ancestral in nature based on revenue records and mutation entries.

3. Whether an alienation of property conducted in violation of a court-ordered injunction has legal sanctity.

The Court applied Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act regarding the bar on Civil Court jurisdiction.

It relied on the precedent in Bank of Baroda v. Gopal Shriram Panda, which established that Civil Courts retain jurisdiction where rights of third parties (non-borrowers/guarantors) are involved and the relief (partition) is beyond the Debt Recovery Tribunal's (DRT) statutory remit.

It followed Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain, clarifying that the DRT has no power to partition properties.

Regarding the violation of injunctions, the Court applied the doctrine from Keshrimal Jivji Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra and Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, holding that transfers made in contumacious disregard of judicial orders are illegal, invalid, and non-est.

The Court observed that while Section 34 bars Civil Courts from interfering with "measures" under the SARFAESI Act, the DRT is a creature of statute with limited jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate complex civil suits for partition or determine coparcenary rights.

Upon reviewing Mutation Entry No. 134, the Court found the Trial Court erred in classifying only one property as ancestral; the records indicated all three properties originated from the Plaintiff’s grandfather’s partition and thus retained ancestral character despite subsequent gift or release deeds.

Crucially, the Petitioner’s conduct in finalizing the auction and executing a sale certificate on 8 May 2025, months after the January 2025 injunction, was deemed a "willful disobedience".

The Court reasoned that such transfers must be treated as non-est to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings, regardless of whether the auction purchaser (Respondent 8) acted in good faith or paid consideration.

It held that: (i) the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a partition suit by a coparcener notwithstanding SARFAESI proceedings.

(ii) the Plaintiff established a prima facie case that the suit properties were ancestral.

and (iii) the sale of the suit property by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 8, being in defiance of a prohibitory injunction, conferred no right, title, or interest and was "non-est in the eye of law".

All interim applications were disposed of accordingly.