Courts may maintain status quo where a coparcener constructs upon undivided joint family property.

The opposite parties, as plaintiffs, instituted Original Suit No. 93 of 2022 seeking declaration of right, title and interest, recovery of possession and consequential reliefs over the disputed land.

They claimed that the property, originally recorded in the name of Latan Sao, was settled by the ex-landlord in favour of Deo Narain Sao in 1924, whose successor Baijnath Sao later sold 0.41 acres to Rukmini Devi in 1975.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were attempting to assert a false claim and construct an iron structure over part of the suit property, leading to proceedings under Section 144 CrPC.

The defendants disputed the plaintiffs’ title and asserted that, after Latan Sao died issueless, the property devolved upon his agnate Rang Lal Sao and thereafter upon his six sons, including Deo Narain Sao.

They also claimed that the disputed portion had fallen to their share through an oral family partition.

The trial court, after final adjudication of the injunction application, passed an order dated 20 September 2024 in Original Suit No. 93 of 2022.

The District Judge-I, Chatra, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2024, allowed the plaintiffs’ application, set aside the trial court’s order dated 20 September 2024, and directed the parties to maintain status quo until disposal of the suit.

The defendants challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the District Judge-I, Chatra erred in directing the parties to maintain status quo over the disputed property pending disposal of Original Suit No. 93 of 2022?

Whether the impugned appellate order warranted interference by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?

Whether construction by one alleged coparcener over an undivided portion of joint family property justified continuation of interim protection pending partition and final adjudication of the parties’ rights?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, under which the High Court exercises limited supervisory jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional errors, material irregularity or patent illegality by subordinate courts; it does not ordinarily reappreciate interlocutory factual assessments absent such error.

The Court also applied the settled principles governing interim injunctions—prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury—and upheld preservation of the existing position where construction over disputed property may aggravate conflict or prejudice the subject matter of the suit.

The Court further relied on the principle that, where property is admitted to be joint family property and there has been no partition by metes and bounds, one coparcener’s construction over a disputed portion cannot be allowed to alter the position of the property pending adjudication.

The High Court found that both sides admitted that they were coparceners and that the suit property formed part of the joint family property, although they disputed the parties’ respective claims and the alleged oral partition.

Since no partition by metes and bounds had taken place, construction by one coparcener over a portion of the joint property created a genuine risk of altering the disputed subject matter and intensifying the existing tension between the parties.

The police report in the Section 144 CrPC proceeding also indicated that the construction had aggravated the atmosphere of dispute and potential violence.

In these circumstances, the District Judge correctly assessed that stopping construction would cause no comparable prejudice to the defendants, whereas continued construction could cause irreparable injury to the plaintiffs; the balance of convenience therefore favoured maintenance of status quo.

The High Court found no patent illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity in that exercise of discretion warranting intervention under Article 227.

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless.

Any pending interlocutory application was disposed of as infructuous.