Interim Injunction Granted Where Ancestral Character and Mental Capacity to Execute Gift Deeds are Disputed

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, partition, and permanent injunction concerning thirteen properties of his late father, Sh. Mahabir Prasad Jain, who died intestate on 28.04.2025

Five properties (1.1–1.5) were received by the father via a 1995 partition deed, which contained a clause stating wives and sons would have a share in their respective branch head's portion

The plaintiff contended that properties 1.6–1.13 were acquired from the sale proceeds of ancestral shops

The plaintiff challenged ten gift deeds executed by the father in favor of the defendants between Dec 2021 and Feb 2022, alleging the properties were ancestral and that the father suffered from dementia at the time of execution

The defendants argued the properties were self-acquired and the suit was barred by limitation

1. Whether the properties received by the father through the 1995 partition deed retained their ancestral character in his hands qua his sons

2. Whether the late father was in a sound disposing state of mind when executing the impugned gift deeds

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit properties

The court primarily applied Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC regarding interim injunctions.

Hindu Law principle established in Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad, which dictates that a share obtained by a coparcener on partition remains ancestral property as regards his male issue

Principle from Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh, holding that while a sole coparcener may treat such property as separate, the birth of a son revives the coparcenary character

Section 58 of the Evidence Act and the principle from Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, stating that judicial admissions in pleadings constitute a waiver of proof

The court found that Defendant No. 1 admitted the properties (1.1–1.5) were ancestral prior to the 1995 partition

Applying the Shyam Narayan Prasad doctrine, the court held that these properties retained their ancestral character in the father’s hands, meaning the father was not competent to gift them unilaterally

Regarding properties 1.6–1.13, while direct evidence of a "common nucleus" was lacking at the interim stage, the court scrutinized medical records from Max Hospital

The court found the plaintiff’s evidence of the father's dementia diagnosis in August 2021—recorded as "progressive forgetfulness"—to be prima facie credible, casting doubt on the father's capacity to execute gift deeds three months later

Regarding limitation, the court determined it was a mixed question of fact and law requiring trial

The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, the balance of convenience favored maintaining the status quo, and irreparable loss would occur if the properties were alienated before trial

The court allowed application I.A. 15783/2025, restraining the defendants from selling, alienating, or creating any third-party interests in the suit properties during the pendency of the suit