Temporary Injunction Must Be Granted to Preserve Parental Property in Possession of Heirs Pending Partition Suit

The appellants filed a civil suit for declaration, partition, and permanent injunction regarding a residential property in Raipur.

They contended the property was originally allotted to their common ancestor, R.D. Mukherjee, in 1971, although records were later updated in the name of the respondents' predecessor to facilitate a loan.

The appellants currently occupy the premises, while the respondents reside in other cities.

The appellants sought a temporary injunction to prevent the respondents from selling the property during the litigation, which the Trial Court rejected on October 14, 2025.

The appellants subsequently challenged this rejection in the High Court.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for temporary injunction despite the suit property appearing to be ancestral in nature.

2. Whether the appellants satisfied the triable criteria of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss required for interim relief.

The court applied Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs the grant of temporary injunctions.

The court relied on the established three-pronged test: the existence of a prima facie case, the balance of convenience favoring the applicant, and the likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction is withheld.

The High Court observed that while the respondents claimed absolute ownership based on revenue records, the property’s history indicated an initial allotment to the parties' grandfather, R.D. Mukherjee, suggesting it is prima facie parental/ancestral property.

The Court noted that the appellants have maintained long-term physical possession of the house, while the respondents live elsewhere.

It reasoned that if the respondents were permitted to alienate the property or create third-party interests before the final decree, the appellants would suffer loss that could not be easily compensated.

Consequently, the Court found the Trial Court's refusal to protect the status quo was perverse as it failed to meticulously consider the combined weight of possession and the ancestral nature of the claim.

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court's order dated October 14, 2025. The respondents are restrained from alienating, transferring, or creating any third-party interest in the suit property until the final disposal of Civil Suit No. 67A/2023.