Karnataka HC Upholds Restraint On Buyer Selling Layout Sites During Suit To Partition Family Property

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession, claiming that the suit properties were matruka properties, and sought an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC against alienation.

The dispute particularly concerned Item No. 3, which defendant No. 4 had purchased under a registered sale deed and converted for non-agricultural use, with a layout formed on it.

The Trial Court granted an injunction restraining defendant No. 4 from alienating the disputed property; the First Appellate Court dismissed the defendants’ appeal.

Defendants 1, 2 and 4 challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC provide for temporary injunctions in appropriate cases.

The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited; relying on Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423, the Court stated that the concurrent orders did not warrant interference in the circumstances of this case.

The Court noted that the plaintiff’s partition claim remained pending and that the disputed property was claimed to be part of the parties’ matruka properties, notwithstanding defendant No. 4’s purchase and subsequent development.

It reasoned that permitting further sales of sites formed on Item No. 3 could impede execution of a decree in the plaintiff’s favour and lead to multiplicity of litigation.

Finding no error in the concurrent orders, and applying the limited scope of Article 227 review, the Court declined to interfere.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.