The legal dispute revolves around a family conflict involving agricultural land in Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners, Sanjay Kumar Tripathi and another, filed a suit against their mother, Suryakali Tripathi, seeking to restrain her from transferring her undivided share of the jointly owned property. The suit arose from allegations that Suryakali, under the influence of her daughter Anita Mishra and son-in-law, had misappropriated sale proceeds from a previous sale of a portion of the property and was planning to sell more land without partitioning it.
The property in question consists of multiple plots across different villages in Kanpur Nagar, which remain undivided among the co-owners. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against their mother to prevent any further transfers of the property until a formal partition could be conducted.
Legal Issues Involved:
The primary legal issue addressed by the Allahabad High Court was whether a co-owner can be restrained from selling their undivided share in a property, and whether such a dispute falls within the jurisdiction of civil courts or revenue courts under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006.
The court had to determine:
1. The validity of the plaintiffs’ claim that their mother could not transfer her share without a partition.
2. Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, which excludes civil courts from adjudicating certain types of disputes involving agricultural land.
Decision of the Court:
Justice J.J. Munir, presiding over the case, dismissed the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, upholding the order of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 21, Kanpur Nagar, which had set aside an earlier ad interim injunction granted by the Trial Court.
The High Court observed that there is no legal right for one co-owner to prevent another from transferring their undivided share in a property. The court noted that any transfer by a co-owner without partition would only transfer their interest in the property, and the transferee would be entitled to seek partition. The court further held that the plaintiffs’ claim for a temporary injunction was misconceived and not supported by law.
Important Observations:
Justice J.J. Munir emphasized in the judgment:
– “There is absolutely no right inhering in the co-sharer of a property to prevent another co-sharer by the Court’s injunction from transferring that other’s unpartitioned share.”
– The court also highlighted the jurisdictional issue, stating, “The jurisdiction to try a suit of this kind would, therefore, on a bare reading of the plaint, lie exclusively in the Revenue Court.”
Parties Involved:
– Petitioners: Sanjay Kumar Tripathi and another
– Respondent: Suryakali Tripathi
– Counsel for Petitioners: Anuj Kumar Srivastava, Nisheeth Yadav
– Counsel for Respondent: Manu Srivastava, Vivek Kumar Srivastava
– Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 1015 of 2024
