Temporary injunction and limitation in property dispute: prima facie case and balance of convenience supported preservation of suit properties.

Temporary injunction restraining alienation of suit properties was upheld because the materials showed a prima facie case that the properties were purchased in the plaintiff's name with loan repayment by him, while the defendant failed to show an independent source of income; the balance of convenience favoured preserving the properties to avoid prejudice and further complications. The limitation objection was also not accepted at the interlocutory stage, as the relevant point for limitation was the alleged denial of the plaintiff's right, not merely the date of purchase, leaving the issue open for trial if properly framed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order granting temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit properties required interference in appeal. (ii) Whether the suit was barred by limitation at the stage of consideration of temporary injunction.

Issue (i): Whether the order granting temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit properties required interference in appeal.

Analysis: The materials considered by the trial court showed that the loan for purchase of the properties stood in the joint names of the spouses and that the respondent had repaid the loan amount. The appellant did not produce convincing material to show independent source of income for purchase of the properties. At the interlocutory stage, the respondent therefore disclosed a prima facie case that the properties were purchased by him in the name of the appellant. The Court also accepted that alienation by the appellant would prejudice the respondent and create complications in the suit, so the balance of convenience supported preservation of the subject properties. The argument based on the Hindu Succession Act was rejected, and the Court also noted that a purchase by a husband in the name of his wife, on the facts found, did not defeat the respondent's claim in view of the benami law exception relied upon.

Conclusion: The grant of temporary injunction was upheld and no interference was warranted in appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation at the stage of consideration of temporary injunction.

Analysis: The Court held that for limitation purposes the relevant date was not the date of purchase of the properties, but the date on which the plaintiff's asserted right was denied. The dates referred to in the plaint did not, by themselves, establish that the suit was time-barred at the interlocutory stage, and the issue could still be examined by the trial court if framed for trial.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected for the purpose of interfering with the temporary injunction order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the trial court had properly exercised its discretion in granting temporary injunction and no ground for appellate interference was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against an interlocutory injunction order, interference is not justified where the applicant establishes a prima facie case and balance of convenience, and limitation cannot be treated as concluded merely by reference to the date of purchase when the alleged denial of right is the relevant starting point.

---