➤ Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Pritish Kumar and Vipul Gupta.
Respondents: Advocate Ankit Srivastava, RBS Rathaur, and Advocate Rajneesh Maurya.
The Lucknow Bench of the Court held thus in an appeal filed by a man against the order of the Civil Judge by which his injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was rejected.
Read Also: II Wife not fasting on Karwa Chauth will not by itself amount to cruelty: Delhi High Court II
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed, “This Court under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act may presume the existence of fact that the property purchased by Hindu husband in the name of his spouse, who is homemaker and does not have independent source of income, will be the property of family, because in common course of natural event Hindu husband purchases a property in the name of his wife, who is homemaker and does not have any source of income for the benefit of family.”
Advocate Pritish Kumar represented the appellant while Advocate Ankit Srivastava represented the respondents.
Through a sale deed, the husband's father purchased the property in dispute and it was further mentioned in the plaint that the husband also made construction over that plot, and thereafter, the entire family was running a business therein. Therefore, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. was filed during the pendency of the suit with a prayer that the respondent may be restrained from transferring the same. The said application for interim injunction was dismissed by the lower court and hence, the husband approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “… here the appellant is claiming the declaration of only 1⁄4th share in the property in dispute on the ground that the property belongs to a joint Hindu family and the property was purchased during the lifetime of the father of the appellant in the name of respondent no.1, who was homemaker.”
The Court held that in such case prima facie the property is joint Hindu family property and protection of property from transferring to a third party is necessary.
Read Also: II Delightful Delicacies: A Culinary Journey Through Delhi's Must-Try Food Recipes II
The Court also restrained the respondents from transferring the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.