### Civil Court maintains jurisdiction over partition suits involving ancestral property despite SARFAESI Act bar.

The Petitioner (Defendant No. 5), a secured creditor, sanctioned financial facilities to a firm where Respondents No. 2 and 3 (the parents of Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff) were partners.

Upon default, the Petitioner initiated recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and obtained symbolic possession of the suit property (Hotel Aishwarya Regency).

Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for partition (RCS No. 305 of 2023), claiming the property was ancestral and asserting her 1/5th coparcenary share.

The trial court initially refused a temporary injunction, finding only one of the three Survey numbers was ancestral.

However, the District Court, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2023, reversed this and restrained the Petitioner from creating third-party interests in the Plaintiff's share without due process.

Despite this injunction being signed on January 24, 2025, the Petitioner conducted an e-auction on January 28, 2025, and later executed a sale certificate in favor of Respondent No. 8.

The Court applied Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, which bars civil court jurisdiction over matters the DRT is empowered to determine, but clarified this using *Bank of Baroda v. Gopal Shriram Panda* [2021 SCC Online Bom 466], holding that partition suits involve civil rights that the DRT cannot adjudicate.

It relied on *Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain* [(2025) 4 SCC 38] to establish that the DRT has no power to partition properties.

Regarding the breach of injunction, the court applied the principles from *Keshrimal Jivji Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra* [(2004) 3 Mah.L.J. 893] and *Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor* [(2023) 17 SCC 545], which state that transfers made in violation of a prohibitory order confer no right, title, or interest and are non-est in the eyes of law.

The Court reasoned that while the SARFAESI Act provides a mechanism for enforcing security interests, it cannot extinguish the independent ancestral rights of a coparcener who was not a party to the mortgage.

The Court found that Mutation Entry No. 134 proved all three Survey numbers (1A, 1B, and 1C) originated from the Plaintiff’s grandfather, Dnynoba Mali, thus establishing their ancestral character despite subsequent internal family transfers or gift deeds.

The Court scrutinized the Petitioner's conduct, noting that the auction was conducted on the very day the injunction was uploaded and the sale was finalized months later despite knowledge of the restraint.

The Court held that "due process of law" as mentioned in the injunction required the Petitioner to specifically address the Plaintiff's share, which it failed to do.

Consequently, the Petitioner's reliance on Section 34 was rejected because the DRT lacks the jurisdiction to perform a partition or determine complex ancestral titles.

It held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain partition suits involving secured assets when the plaintiff is a non-borrower asserting ancestral rights.

Significantly, the Court declared that the Petitioner's sale of the property to the auction purchaser (Respondent No. 8) in the teeth of the injunction was illegal and conferred no rights, as such transfers are non-est.

The Rule was discharged with no costs.