Bombay High Court
CHANCHAL AJAYSINGH CHAUHANversusDHARAMPALSINGH RUPSINGH CHAUHAN AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The appeal is partly allowed; the lower court’s order granting a temporary injunction is partly set aside and the respondents are restrained from creating any third‑party interest to the extent of the appellant’s one‑fourth share in the suit properties.
Summary
The appellant, daughter of the deceased, sought a temporary injunction to prevent the respondents from creating any third‑party interest in several plots that form the subject of a partition suit. The suit for partition was dismissed, but the trial court had earlier granted an injunction (Exhibit‑5) which the appellate court set aside. The appellant argued that she holds a one‑fourth share in the properties and would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction were not restored. The respondents contended that the will already granted her a one‑fourth share and that the dismissal of the suit negated the need for further relief. The High Court found a prima facie case in favour of the appellant, held that the balance of convenience lay with her, and partly allowed the appeal, reinstating a limited injunction restraining the respondents from creating third‑party interests to the extent of the appellant’s one‑fourth share, while disposing of the pending civil application.
Issues considered
- Whether a temporary injunction can be granted pending appeal when the underlying suit for partition has been dismissed on merits.
- Whether the appellant’s one‑fourth share in the disputed plots establishes a prima facie right justifying interim relief.
- Whether the appellate court is bound by the trial court’s earlier injunction order.
Subjects
- temporary injunction
- partition suit
- third‑party interest
- interim relief
- civil appeal
- property law
- irreparable loss
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46078
915 AO NO. 61 OF 2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 61 OF 2026
Chanchal Ajaysingh Chauhan
VERSUS
Dharampalsingh Rupsingh Chauhan And Others
...
Mr. Rathi Swapnil S., Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Madhav K. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11338 OF 2026 IN AO/61/2026
….
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 30.09.2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard.
2. Issue notice to the Respondents. Learned Advocate Mr.
M. K. Jadhav waives notice for the Respondents.
3. By consent of the parties, this Appeal is heard finally at
the stage of admission.
4. By this Appeal, the Appellant-plaintiff has challenged an
order passed by the learned District Judge-1, Hingoli, below
Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Appeal No.41 of 2025, dated
05.09.2026, whereby the application filed by the Appellant-
plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction restraining the
Respondents from creating any third-party interest in the suit
1 of 5
(( 2 )) 915 AO NO. 61 OF 2026
properties came to be rejected.
5. Mr. S. S. Rathi, learned Advocate for the Appellant-plaintiff
submitted that the land admeasuring 1 H 47 R in Block No. 108, land
admeasuring 1 H 25 R in Block No. 109, House No. 3246, and Plot
Nos. 5, 12, 7, 22 and 27 in Survey No. 21, City Survey No. 2749,
situated at village Karwadi, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli, are the subject matter
of the suit.
6. The Appellant is the daughter of Respondent No. 1 and
sister of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Advocate for the Appellant
submitted that the suit land Block Nos. 108 and 109 were in the
name of the Appellant's mother, but Respondents prepared a false and
bogus Will dated 26.03.2015, which was allegedly executed by the
mother of the Appellant, and on that basis, they are now trying to
transfer the plots situated in the suit properties. It is submitted that
partition of the suit properties is not effected, hence, the Appellant
filed the suit for partition which came to be dismissed. However, the
learned Trial Court had allowed the application at Exhibit-5 and
restrained the Defendants, i.e., the Respondents, from creating any
third-party interest in the suit properties. He further submitted that,
though the suit was dismissed, this Appeal is a continuation of the
2 of 5
(( 3 )) 915 AO NO. 61 OF 2026
suit, therefore, if the nature of the subject matter is changed, the
Appellant will suffer irreparable loss which may result in creating
multiplicity of judicial proceedings. He submitted that, to prevent
multiplicity of proceedings and to protect the subject matter during
the pendency of the Appeal, the application at Exhibit-5 was preferred
for temporary injunction, which was rejected by the learned Appellate
Court. He submitted that if a third-party interest is created in the suit
property, the Appellant will certainly suffer. He, therefore, prayed to
allow the application at Exhibit-5.
7. Mr. M. K. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the Respondents
submitted that the Will executed by the mother of the Appellant was
also in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff, under which she received a
¼th share. He submitted that, in the suit for partition, evidence was
led by the parties and, after considering the evidence on merits, the
suit came to be dismissed. The Gift Deed executed in favour of the
Respondents has been challenged by the Plaintiff. He submitted that
merely because a temporary injunction had been granted in the suit,
the Appellate Court is not bound to pass a similar order of temporary
injunction in the appeal, particularly when the suit itself has been
dismissed on merits. He therefore prayed to dismiss the appeal, as
3 of 5
(( 4 )) 915 AO NO. 61 OF 2026
there is no substance in the grounds of objection raised therein.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, the judgment of the
learned Trial Court, and the grounds of objections raised in the
appeal, it appears that non-agricultural (N.A.) plots have been
developed in the suit properties. The Respondents are trying to sell
the said plots. However, the Appellant-Plaintiff has a ¼ th share in the
said properties. Therefore, to the extent of the Appellant-Plaintiff's ¼ th
share in the suit properties, if temporary injunction is granted, the
interest of the Appellant-Plaintiff can be safeguarded. To that extent,
there is a prima facie case in favour of the Appellant-Plaintiff and the
balance of convenience also lies in her favour. The Appellant-Plaintiff
would suffer irreparable loss if the temporary injunction is not
granted to the aforesaid extent.
9. In view of the above reasons, the appeal deserves to be
partly allowed and the impugned order deserves to be partly set
aside. Hence, the following order:
::ORDER::
a. The Appeal From Order is partly allowed.
b. The order passed by the learned District Judge-1, Hingoli,
below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2025,
4 of 5
(( 5 )) 915 AO NO. 61 OF 2026
dated 05.09.2026, is partly set aside.
c. The Respondents are temporarily restrained from creating
any third-party interest to the extent of the ¼ th share of
the Appellant-Plaintiff in the plots situated in the suit
properties. The Appellant-Plaintiff shall communicate this
order to the Respondents by RPAD and shall also serve a
copy of this order to the Sub-Registrar, Hingoli.
d. Pending Civil Application is disposed of.
e. The observations made herein are prima facie in nature
and are confined to the extent of the present appeal only.
The learned Appellate Court shall not be influenced by
the observations or findings recorded herein while
deciding Regular Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2025 on its own
merits.
f. The learned Appellate Court is directed to decide Regular
Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2025 as early as possible and, in
any case, within one year. However, it is clarified that if
any matter is earlier expedited either by the Honourable
Supreme Court or this Court, priority shall be given to
that matter or matters, and thereafter the present appeal
shall be decided.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav
5 of 5
Checking your session…