Bombay High Court
RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. PRESENTLY PATANJALI FOODS LTD. THRU. ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORYversusMANDAKINI RAMHARI CHAVAN AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- Rejected at Admission stage
Holding
The revision application is dismissed; the trial court’s order rejecting the Order VII Rule 11 application is upheld.
Summary
The plaintiff, a Hindu wife of defendant No.3, filed a suit seeking a perpetual injunction against defendants, including defendant No.1 who had purchased the suit property from her husband. The plaintiff's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint argued that she had no coparcenary right or locus standi. The High Court examined precedents concerning a wife’s right to challenge a sale deed of HUF property and held that those cases were not applicable because the present suit does not seek partition but an injunction, and the cause of action must be determined on facts and evidence. The Court found the trial court’s reasoning sound, noting that a wife may challenge a sale deed on grounds of fraud even without a coparcenary share. Consequently, the civil revision application was dismissed and the order rejecting the Order VII Rule 11 application was upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether a Hindu wife has locus standi to file a suit challenging her husband’s sale of HUF property.
- Whether a cause of action exists for a perpetual injunction despite the plaintiff’s lack of coparcenary rights.
- Whether the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC should be rejected.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
Subjects
- Hindu Undivided Family
- coparcenary
- perpetual injunction
- cause of action
- Order VII Rule 11
- civil revision
- locus standi
- sale deed
- fraud
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:39506
cra89.26
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
904 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2026
Ruchi Soya Industries Pvt. Ltd. presently Patanjali Foods Ltd. Thru.
Its Authorized Signatory
VERSUS
Mandakini Ramhari Chavan and others
...
Advocate for the applicant: Mr. Suresh Kant Baxy h/f Mr. Parag P.
Shahane
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. A. N. Irpatgire
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 : Mr. S. G. Kawade with Ms.
Priyanka Kulkarni
…..
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. This Civil Revision Application is preferred against an order
below Exh.98, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Bhoom, District Dharashiv (Osmanabad), in Special Civil Suit No. 7 of
2014, dated 20.02.2026, whereby the application filed under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be
rejected.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant pointed out the plaint
and the application at Exh.98 and submitted that the plaintiff, is the
wife of defendant No.3, he has sold the suit property to defendant
No.1, The wife has filed the suit seeking a perpetual injunction
cra89.26
-2-
restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to her
possession etc.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
plaintiff being a Hindu wife has no right, title or interest in the suit
property. She is not a coparcener, she has no locus standi to file the
suit and, therefore, no cause of action did arise to file suit. It is
further submitted that the suit was not properly valued. Therefore, the
application was filed seeking rejection of the plaint. It is further
submitted that the reasons and findings recorded in the impugned
order are not legal and sustainable, as, a Hindu wife cannot claim
any right in such coparcenary property which belonged to her
husband, who sold it for legal necessity. Learned advocate for the
applicant lastly submitted that the revision application be allowed, the
impugned order be set aside by allowing the application at Exh.98
and the plaint be rejected on the grounds stated in the said
application.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant is relying upon the
following precedential laws:-
I) In the case of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaaji (Deceased)
through L.Rs. vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through
L.Rs. and others, in Civil Appeal No. 1382 of 2022, decided on
03.03.2022, in para 9.2, it is held that:-
cra89.26
-3-
“9.2 In the present case, once the defendant No.1 was
held to be the true and absolute owner pursuant to the
registered sale deed executed in his favour and the plaintiff
was unsuccessful so far as the declaratory relief is concerned,
thereafter, it cannot be said that there was a cloud over the
title of the plaintiff and/or even the defendant. Therefore, the
only relief which survived before the trial court was the
consideration of relief of permanent injunction and having
been unsuccessful in getting the relief of cancellation of the
registered sale deed and the declaration thereof, the relief of
permanent injunction could not have been granted by the trial
court as well as by the first Appellate Court. This aspect of the
case has been lost sight of by the High Court in the second
appeal.”
II) In the case of Uday Narendra Shah Vs. Narendra
Amritlal Shah; AIR 2014 Bom 119, in para 18, it is observed as
follows:-
“18. The claim by a wife during the life time of the
husband in the share and interest which he has as a
coparcener in his HUF is wholly premature and
completely misconceived. Such bequest under the will
does not show the title of the deceased to such
property. The deceased, therefore, could not have
bequeathed any “monies” as “my share” in the 1/3
share which her husband had in the HUF in which he
was a coparcener along with his brothers, father and
sons. Consequently the injunction in respect of such
property cannot be granted as claimed.”
cra89.26
-4-
III) In the case of Smt. Gunjan Agrawal vs. Ashish Kumar
Gautam and another, First appeal No. 916 of 2026 decided on
25.11.2025, in para 20, it is observed as follows:-
“20. It is apparent that the plaintiff is no more the
owner of the disputed property, since its ownership has
already vested in defendant no.1 through sale deed
dated 30.11.2022, which cannot be cancelled by the
court for non-payment of sale consideration by the
defendant to the plaintiff. Since the main relief of
cancellation of sale deed cannot be granted to the
plaintiff, even the consequential relief of permanent
injunction also cannot be granted to her, for protecting
her alleged possession in the disputed property, since
the above defendant is the true owner of the disputed
property.”
5. Learned advocate for the respondents strongly opposed the
Revision Application and submitted that the learned trial Court has
passed a well reasoned order. Therefore, no interference is
warranted in it. The Respondent pleaded cheating and fraud which
are mixed question of law and fact. It is a matter of evidence, which
would establish whether a cause of action has arisen or not. It is
submitted that the existence of a cause of action is a question of fact
and can be ascertained only upon proper adjudication of the case on
merits, on the evidence in support of respective contentions of both
sides. It is lastly submitted that the revision application be dismissed.
cra89.26
-5-
6. Nobody will dispute principles, guidelines and law laid down
in all the above precedential laws cited by learned advocate for the
applicant. It is well settled that facts of the particular case are
decisive to which law is to be applied. Therefore, each case has to be
decided on the basis of facts. However, keeping in mind the
principles, guidelines and law laid down in the above precedential
laws this Court proceeds to decide legality and propriety of the
impugned order.
7. It is well settled that the cause of action can be ascertained
out of a bundle of facts. The fact of the case discloses a cause of
action, that the husband of the plaintiff has executed a sale deed in
favour of the applicant/defendant No.1, and she alleges that the said
sale deed was executed by cheating and practicing fraud upon her
husband. To prove and disprove the fraud parties have to lead
evidence. No doubt, a coparcener can challenge such a transaction.
But it is not that a member of the joint family cannot challenge the
sale deed on the ground of fraud. It certainly affects the right of
livelihood of the plaintiff and her other family members even though
she has no right to claim partition. Therefore, even though the
plaintiff is the Hindu wife of defendant No.3, her right to challenge the
sale deed executed by her husband is not barred by Hindu Law.
8. In the judgment of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaaji
cra89.26
-6-
(Deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased)
Through L.Rs. and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
adjudicated upon the rights of the parties after the trial Court, the first
appellate Court and the High Court had rendered their respective
judgments on merits after appreciating the evidence, against which
the Civil Appeal was preferred before Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the
present case, however, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed on the ground that no cause
of action arose to the plaintiff to file suit which requires adjudication
on merit and suit is barred as plaintiff has no right to partition.
Therefore, the law laid down in the said authority cannot be applied to
this case at this stage, unless evidence is adduced.
9. No doubt, in the case of Uday Narendra Shah Vs.
Narendra Amritlal Shah (supra), the wife had filed the suit but the
facts in that case were that during the life time of the husband, the
wife was claiming a share in the property of husband. In this case,
the wife is not claiming a partition in the husband’s property.
Therefore, the law laid down in the above authority is not helpful to
the applicant.
10. In the case of Smt. Gunjan Agrawal vs. Ashish Kumar
Gautam and another (supra) the relief of cancellation of the sale
cra89.26
-7-
deed was claimed by the plaintiff for non payment of sale
consideration. In this case the relief of cancellation of the sale deed
is not claimed. Hence, the said case law is not applicable to this
case.
11. In the present case, the plaintiff has not sought the relief of
partition. She has not only claimed the relief of perpetual injunction
but has also sought other reliefs. Whether such reliefs can be granted
or not is to be adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings and evidence
etc. on merit. Having regard to all these factual and legal aspects
and the reasons recorded and findings arrived at by the learned trial
Court, this Court is of the view that those are legal and correct and do
not call for any interference. No case is made out for rejection of
plaint
12. For the reasons discussed above, the precedential laws
relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant are not helpful
to him and therefore those are not relied upon. The civil revision
application deserves to be rejected. It is rejected accordingly. No
costs.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
rlj/
Checking your session…