Court Upholds Injunction Against Transfer of Undivided Joint Family Property.


16 April 2025 Hindu Succession Act >> Inheritance   |   Property Law >> Personal Law  

The Bombay High Court recently in Pralhad Balkrishna Balghare & Another v/s Suryakant Balkrishna Balghare., dismissed a writ petition filed by defendants challenging a lower court order that restrained one of them from selling or transferring property based on gift deeds. The case, stemming from a dispute over ancestral property, highlights the legal complexities surrounding the transfer of undivided shares in joint family holdings under Hindu law.

The dispute revolves around properties originally acquired by Shivram Laxman Balghare, who passed away in 1978. His legal heirs included his widow (who later passed away), three sons (Shankar, Haribhau, and Balkrishna), and two daughters. Balkrishna passed away in 1989, leaving behind his widow (who also passed away later), two sons (Pralhad – Defendant No.1, and Suryakant – Plaintiff), and three daughters. Vidya – Defendant No.2 is Pralhad's wife.


 

 

Previously, in 1990, sons of Haribhau had filed a suit for partition of the joint family properties, including the properties now in dispute. This suit concluded in 2000 with a decree outlining the shares of various family members, including Pralhad and Suryakant. An appeal against this decree was dismissed in 2003, and final decree proceedings are currently pending.

Subsequently, in 2018, Pralhad and Vidya (Defendant Nos. 1 and 2) filed their own suit seeking declaration, injunction, and separate possession of their share in the joint family properties, arguing that the individual shares of Balkrishna's successors were not explicitly declared in the earlier suit and that the properties remained undivided.

The current legal battle originated when Suryakant (the Plaintiff) filed a suit in 2019 challenging two gift deeds executed by Pralhad (Defendant No.1) in favor of his wife, Vidya (Defendant No.2). These gift deeds pertained to undivided shares in some of the ancestral properties. Suryakant argued that the gifting of an undivided interest was illegal and void.

The Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Pune, granted a temporary injunction restraining Vidya from alienating the suit property based on these gift deeds, reasoning that the properties were admitted joint family properties and Pralhad prima facie lacked the right to gift his undivided interest. This order was upheld by the District Judge, Pune, in a subsequent appeal.

Aggrieved by these concurrent orders, the Defendants approached the High Court. Their counsel argued that with the demise of Balkrishna in 1989, a notional partition occurred under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This, they contended, converted the nature of the property from joint family property to property held by the heirs as tenants in common, thus allowing Pralhad to deal with his share freely. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments, including Uttam V/s. Saubhag Singh and Ors. and Gurupad Khandappa Magdum V/s. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, which discuss the implications of notional partition on the character of inherited property.

However, the Respondent's counsel countered by highlighting the findings of the 1990 suit, which had already declared the properties as ancestral. They also pointed to the suit filed by the Defendants themselves in 2018, where they acknowledged the undivided nature of the properties and sought partition. Furthermore, documents indicating mutual no-objection for property usage between Pralhad and Suryakant were presented as evidence of their understanding of the properties as jointly held.

The Respondent's counsel also cited Supreme Court precedents like Thamma Venkata Subbamma V/s. Thamma Rattamma and Ors. and Baljinder Singh V/s. Rattan Singh, which establish the legal principle that a gift of an undivided coparcenary interest by a coparcener is generally void. They argued that the lower courts had correctly applied this principle.

The High Court, after considering the arguments and the factual matrix, upheld the orders of the lower courts. Justice [Name of Judge not available in the provided text] observed that the earlier decree in the 1990 suit had conclusively established the ancestral nature of the properties, precluding the Petitioners from arguing otherwise. The Court also noted the Petitioners' own conduct in treating the properties as joint and seeking partition in their subsequent suit.

Crucially, the High Court distinguished the applicability of the notional partition argument. Relying on the three-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma V/s. Rakesh Sharma and Ors., the Court clarified that the statutory fiction of partition upon the death of a coparcener under the unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act was primarily for determining the share of the deceased and did not automatically result in an actual partition or disruption of the coparcenary. The Court emphasized that unless a final partition is worked out, the rights are to be recognized as they exist.

Therefore, the High Court concluded that Pralhad's attempt to gift his undivided interest in the joint family properties was prima facie not legally sound. The injunction restraining Vidya from further alienating the properties was deemed justifiable to protect the subject matter of the ongoing legal dispute.

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs. The High Court explicitly clarified that its observations were limited to the legality of the injunction order and should not influence the trial court's final adjudication of the suit. This case serves as a reminder of the intricate legal framework governing ancestral property and the limitations on transferring undivided interests within a joint Hindu family.


Section 6, Hindu Succession Act - 1956  

Hindu Succession Act, 1956