Concurrent denial of temporary injunction warrants no Article 227 interference absent perversity or jurisdictional error.

The petitioners, plaintiffs in O.S. No. 284/2014, sought partition and separate possession of their alleged shares in the suit schedule properties.

During the suit, they applied under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating those properties.

The Trial Court rejected the application, finding that the plaintiffs’ documents did not prima facie establish that the properties stood in the name of their alleged propositus, Thimmaiah, while the defendants’ documents indicated individual acquisition.

The Appellate Court affirmed that decision, and the plaintiffs challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC govern the grant of temporary injunctions; a claim for such relief must be supported by prima facie material.

Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction and does not substitute its view for that of the subordinate courts merely because another view is possible.

Interference is warranted where an order suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error.

The Trial Court and the Appellate Court had considered the parties’ material and found that the plaintiffs had not prima facie substantiated their assertion that the suit properties were joint-family properties; the available documents instead indicated individual acquisition by the defendants.

The High Court held that the assertion of a joint-family claim, by itself, did not entitle the plaintiffs to an injunction.

Finding no perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in the concurrent orders, and declining to reappreciate the prima facie material under Article 227, the Court found no basis for interference.

The writ petition was dismissed.