### Civil Court’s jurisdiction to entertain partition suits is not barred by Section 34 of SARFAESI Act.

The Petitioner, a secured creditor, sanctioned financial facilities to a firm where Respondents 2 and 3 (parents of Respondent 1/Plaintiff) were partners and guarantors.

Upon default, the Petitioner initiated recovery under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, taking symbolic possession.

Respondent 1 (the daughter) filed a suit (RCS No. 305 of 2023) for partition and injunction, claiming the suit properties were ancestral coparcenary property.

The Trial Court initially rejected the temporary injunction.

The District Court, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2023, reversed this and restrained the Defendants from creating third-party interests in the Plaintiff's share.

Despite this injunction (pronounced Jan 24, 2025, and uploaded Jan 28, 2025), the Petitioner proceeded with an auction and accepted the bid of Respondent 8 on Jan 28, 2025, later executing a sale certificate in May 2025.

The Petitioner challenged the District Court's injunction order through this Writ Petition.

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-borrowing coparcener?

2. Whether the suit properties possessed an ancestral character entitling the Plaintiff to a prima facie share?

3. Whether an alienation of property carried out in disobedience of a court’s injunction order is valid in the eyes of law?

The Court applied the jurisdictional principles of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act as interpreted in *Bank of Baroda v. Gopal Shriram Panda*.

*Central Bank of India v. Prabha Jain*, which establish that DRTs lack the power to partition property, thus preserving Civil Court jurisdiction for third-party civil rights.

Regarding the validity of transfers during injunctions, the court relied on *Keshrimal Jivji Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra*, which mandates that transfers in violation of a prohibitory order confer no right, title, or interest.

It further referenced *Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor* regarding the court's power to treat contumacious transactions as void.

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s jurisdictional challenge, noting that while the SARFAESI Act bars civil suits regarding "measures" under Section 13(4), the DRT cannot adjudicate complex partition claims involving coparcenary rights of non-borrowers; thus, the Civil Court’s jurisdiction remains intact.

On merits, the Court found the District Judge correctly identified the ancestral nature of the properties through Mutation Entry No. 134, which showed the lands were partitioned from the grandfather's estate.

Critically, the Court observed that the Petitioner’s conduct—conducting an auction on the very day the injunction was uploaded and finalizing it months later—amounted to a willful defiance of the District Court's order.

The Court reasoned that protecting the sanctity of judicial orders requires treating transfers made in breach of injunctions as *non-est* or illegal, meaning the auction purchaser (Respondent 8) could not claim benefit from such a transaction.

The Court held that the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain partition suits by co-sharers despite SARFAESI proceedings.

The Court specifically ruled that the creation of third-party interest (the auction sale) by the Petitioner in the face of the injunction was illegal and did not prejudice the Plaintiff’s rights.

Rule was discharged and all interim applications were disposed of.