Interim injunction in property disputes requires a prima facie case; HUF entries alone do not convert absolute ownership into coparcenary property.

A Delhi HC decision on interim injunction in a property dispute held that a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury before restraint can issue. On the admitted succession and partition facts, the property was treated as having devolved absolutely on the defendant's branch, and the earlier bequest did not create ancestral coparcenary property in the defendant's hands. Mere description of the property as HUF property in a return did not by itself amount to throwing it into the common hotchpotch or surrendering absolute ownership. As no sale deed had yet been executed, no breach of the lease condition was shown at that stage, and interim injunction was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a temporary injunction restraining dealing with the suit property on the claim that it was ancestral coparcenary property and not the absolute property of the defendant.

Analysis: The claim for interim restraint depended on establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. On the admitted facts, the property devolved upon the defendant through the succession and partition proceedings after the original owner's death, and the bequest was treated as conferring absolute ownership on the sons rather than creating ancestral property in the hands of the defendant. The filing of a return describing the property as HUF property did not, by itself, amount to throwing the property into the common hotchpotch or relinquishing absolute rights. Since the transfer had not been completed by execution of a sale deed, no violation of the lease condition was made out at that stage.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for injunction, and the temporary injunction was declined.

---