TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether an ad interim injunction could be sustained notwithstanding the objection based on Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; and (ii) whether a stranger-transferee of an undivided share in a family dwelling house could be restrained from claiming joint possession under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Issue (i): Whether an ad interim injunction could be sustained notwithstanding the objection based on Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The objection that reasons must be recorded for an ad interim injunction was rejected because the order under challenge was not passed ex parte. Both sides were heard, and the party opposing injunction had filed objections and contested the matter. The requirement in Order 39 Rule 3 was treated as directed to ex parte orders and was not applied mechanically where the order was passed after hearing both parties. Urgency was also found from the need to protect the privacy and possession of members of an undivided family dwelling house.
Conclusion: The injunction was not invalid on the ground of non-compliance with Order 39 Rule 3.
Issue (ii): Whether a stranger-transferee of an undivided share in a family dwelling house could be restrained from claiming joint possession under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Analysis: Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applied to hold that where the transferee of a share of a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family is not a member of the family, he has no entitlement to joint possession or common enjoyment before partition. The stranger-transferee's remedy was confined to partition, and the co-sharers were entitled to protection by injunction to prevent interference with possession. The Court treated the lease of an undivided share in the dwelling house in favour of a stranger as sufficient to justify interim restraint, with support from the protective scheme of Section 4 of the Partition Act, 1893.
Conclusion: The stranger-transferee could be restrained from joint possession, and the injunction was rightly granted.
Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, and the order of ad interim injunction was affirmed as a proper protective order in favour of the co-sharers of the undivided family dwelling house.
Ratio Decidendi: A stranger-transferee of an undivided share in a family dwelling house has no right to joint possession before partition, and the co-sharers may obtain injunctive protection against such interference even at the interim stage.
TaxTMI 
