Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

Modifies Injunction Order in Joint Family Property Dispute: Limited scope of injunctive relief in joint Hindu family disputes: Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court modified an injunction order in a dispute involving joint family properties, shedding light on the limitations of a coparcener's right to seek injunctive relief. The case involved a partition suit filed by a five-year-old boy and his mother against family members, including the father and grandfather. The court's observations provide valuable insights into the rights and restrictions within a joint Hindu family and the maintainability of certain legal actions.

Bombay High Court emphasized that while a coparcener has the right to claim a share in joint family property, they do not have the right to interfere with the management of joint family affairs or seek a permanent injunction against the Karta/Manager. The court cited Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, which bars the grant of injunction in certain cases, and noted that a coparcener can challenge any encumbrances on their share but cannot prevent the Karta from dealing with the property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate.

The judgment also highlighted the complexity of the case, with disputes among family members over the nature of the properties, release of rights by sisters, and challenges to sale transactions that occurred years before the lawsuit was filed. The court questioned the maintainability of challenging such transactions after a substantial period and suggested that the plaintiff's motive might be to settle matrimonial disputes indirectly.

Ultimately, High court modified the injunction order, directing the appellants not to create third-party interests or change possession only in respect of a specific land, rather than imposing a blanket injunction against all defendants. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

The case serves as a reminder of the intricacies involved in joint family property disputes and the limitations on coparceners seeking injunctive relief. It also highlights the importance of maintaining a clear legal distinction between joint family matters and matrimonial disputes.

Date of Decision: October 26, 2023

Baburao Shivputra Erandole VS Kumar Adwait Nikhil Erandole

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/26-Oct-2023-Baburao-Shivputra-Vs-NIKHIL-ERANDOLE-Bombay.pdf"]

Similar News