Restrain property alienation via temporary injunction to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and preserve disputed coparcenary rights.

The appellant (plaintiff) filed a civil suit for declaration of title, partition, possession, and permanent injunction regarding properties left by her father, Shaitanmal, who died on 22.12.2006

The appellant claims a 1/3rd share as a coparcener

The respondents (defendants) contested the suit, asserting that Shaitanmal executed a registered Will in favor of respondent No. 1 and that the appellant had signed a registered relinquishment deed and a compromise petition in a previous suit

The appellant, an illiterate woman, alleged that her signatures on these documents were obtained through fraud and misrepresentation by her nephew (respondent No. 1) and sister (respondent No. 2), who stood in a fiduciary relationship with her

The trial court dismissed the appellant's application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC, leading to this appeal

1. Whether the appellant established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction based on her status as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the injunction application by prematurely adjudicating the validity of the relinquishment deed and allegations of fraud without a full trial

3. Whether the disputed property must be preserved pendente lite to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and irreparable loss

The court applied Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing the grant of temporary injunctions.

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005), which grants daughters equal coparcenary rights by birth

The court followed the precedent in Maharawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot v. Baldev Dass (AIR 2005 SC 104), which establishes that the nature of property should generally not be changed through alienation during litigation to avoid irreparable loss and multiplicity of proceedings

Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad & Ors. (2018 7 SCC 646) regarding the nature of ancestral property and the rights of daughters therein

The High Court observed that since Shaitanmal died in 2006—after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act—the appellant prima facie became a coparcener with a 1/3rd share in the ancestral property

While the respondents relied on a registered Will and relinquishment deed, the appellant’s allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and the breach of a fiduciary relationship (given her illiteracy and age) are triable issues that can only be resolved through evidence

The Court found that the trial court reached a premature conclusion by stating fraud could not be accepted at the interlocutory stage

Noting that some property had already been disposed of, the Court held that a reasonable apprehension of further alienation existed, which would frustrate the suit.

Consequently, the balance of convenience favored the preservation of the status quo to prevent irreparable injury to the appellant

The Court held that the appellant had established a prima facie case and that the property must be preserved during the litigation.

It granted a temporary injunction restraining respondents No. 1 to 4 from alienating the disputed property during the pendency of the civil suit (RCS A-72/2023)

The trial court was further directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit preferably within one year