Bombay High Court Declines Interim Injunction Against Family Property Transfers; Finds Plaintiff Failed to Prima Facie Establish Existence of Alleged HUF
Facts
The plaintiff instituted a suit claiming an undivided 1/5th share in various movable and immovable properties, alleging that they formed part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) headed by his late father. He sought partition, challenged several registered Gift Deeds executed by his father in favour of his siblings, questioned the validity of the wills executed by both parents, and sought declarations that these documents were illegal and not binding upon him. Along with the suit, he filed an interim application seeking appointment of a Court Receiver, an injunction restraining further alienation of the properties, and protection against dispossession from the Gulab View Bungalow at Chembur.
The defendants opposed the application, contending that no HUF ever existed, the properties were self-acquired, the plaintiff had executed a 2001 affidavit admitting that the properties belonged exclusively to his parents, and that he had suppressed material documents while approaching the Court. They also raised limitation and delay as substantial defences.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for interim protection.
- Whether the plaintiff had suppressed material facts while seeking equitable relief.
- Whether the challenge to the Gift Deeds was prima facie barred by limitation.
- Whether the plaintiff had established the existence of the alleged Khanna HUF.
- Whether interim injunction and appointment of Court Receiver ought to be granted.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
The plaintiff contended that the suit properties were HUF properties in which he had a coparcenary share. He argued that the Gift Deeds executed by his father were void because the father could not have transferred HUF properties exclusively in favour of some children. He further submitted that the properties standing in his mother’s name remained her absolute properties under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and could not have been dealt with by the father merely because he was a nominee.
He also argued that the 2001 affidavit was executed only on his father’s assurance that it would never be acted upon and therefore could not defeat his rights. According to him, he became aware of the impugned Gift Deeds only after his father’s death in 2022, making the suit within limitation.
Defendants’ Arguments
The defendants submitted that the plaintiff had deliberately suppressed several crucial documents, including the 2001 affidavit, the 2013 correspondence, the public notice issued by the father, and the 2015 affidavit, all of which contradicted the plaintiff’s present case. They argued that a litigant seeking equitable relief must approach the Court with complete candour.
They further contended that the plaintiff had failed to establish the existence of any HUF or joint family nucleus, that the Gift Deeds had remained unquestioned for several years, and that the suit as well as the challenge to the Gift Deeds suffered from delay and limitation.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that interim injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy. A party seeking such relief must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Failure to satisfy any one of these requirements is sufficient to refuse interim protection.
The Court held that a litigant invoking equitable jurisdiction owes a duty of full and frank disclosure. The plaintiff had admittedly not disclosed the 2001 affidavit, the exchange of notices in 2013, the father’s public notice and the 2015 affidavit, despite all of them having a direct bearing on his present claims. Whether these documents ultimately defeated the suit was a matter for trial, but their suppression itself was a relevant consideration while deciding interim relief. The Court relied upon the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, that suppression of material facts disentitles a party from equitable relief.
The Court also found that limitation raised a substantial triable issue. The plaintiff’s assertion that he first became aware of the Gift Deeds in 2022 appeared inconsistent with earlier documents indicating knowledge of disputes and transfers from at least 2013–2015. Whether the suit was governed by Article 58 or Articles 109 and 110 of the Limitation Act required evidence and could not be finally decided at the interim stage, but the limitation defence was neither illusory nor frivolous.
On the question of HUF, the Court observed that the existence of a joint Hindu family does not automatically establish that every family property is HUF property. The burden initially lies on the plaintiff to establish the existence of a joint family nucleus or other material demonstrating that the properties acquired HUF character. The pleadings and documents placed before the Court did not prima facie satisfy this requirement.
Precedent Analysis
The plaintiff relied upon decisions including Indrani Wahi, Shivakumar, K.C. Laxmana, Adiveppa, and Karan Vishnu Khandelwal to support his claims regarding nomination, limitation and HUF properties. The defendants relied upon S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade, and Leena Chaban Tonde to argue suppression, burden of proving HUF and entitlement to equitable relief.
The Court held that while these authorities laid down settled principles, the applicability of many of them depended upon disputed questions of fact that could only be decided during trial.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish all three requirements for grant of interim relief. It held that the suppression of important documents materially affected the plaintiff’s credibility and weighed against the exercise of equitable jurisdiction.
The Court also noted that the challenged transactions had remained in existence for several years and that several properties had already been transferred, leased or become part of redevelopment arrangements involving third parties. Granting an injunction at this stage would unsettle long-standing legal relationships and adversely affect persons who were not alleged to have committed any fraud.
Since the plaintiff had not established a prima facie right, the balance of convenience was found to lie in favour of maintaining the existing state of affairs. The Court further observed that if the plaintiff ultimately succeeded at trial, appropriate consequential reliefs could still be granted. Accordingly, no irreparable injury was made out.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the interim application, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury. It clarified that its observations were confined to the interim application and would not prejudice the trial of the suit, where all issues relating to limitation, existence of the HUF, validity of the Gift Deeds, Wills and other disputed questions would be decided on evidence.
Case Details
Case Name: Variinder @ Rajan s/o Darrshan Khanna v. Narresh Darrshan Khanna & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Jurisdiction: Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Bench: Justice Farhan P. Dubash
Case Number: Interim Application No. 4623 of 2022 in Suit No. 343 of 2022
Reserved On: 27 April 2026
Pronounced On: 27 July 2026
