Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Vikas Bhausheb Rohokale vs Smt. Shalijare Puar on 21 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351
1 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1309 of 2025
SHRIMANT MAHARAJA TUKOJI RAO PUAR RELIGIOUS AND
CHARITABLE TRUST THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE SMT GAYATRIRAJE
AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SHAILJARAJE PUAR AND OTHERS
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Vinay
Chandel, learned counsel for the Appellants - Defendants No. 6 & 7.
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri
Mudit Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
Shri Vijay Kumar Assudani, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3
& 4.
Shri Sumeet Samvatsar, learned counsel for the respondent
No.6/Defendant No. 5.
Shri Manish Sankhla, learned Government Advocate for the respondents
No. 7 & 8/Defendants No. 8 & 9.
Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 9 to
14/Defendants No. 10 to 15.
........................................................................................................................
MISC. APPEAL No. 990 of 2025
SMT. GAYATRIRAJE PUAR AND OTHERS
Versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-01-2026
11:05:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351
2 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25
SMT. SHAILJARAJE PUAR AND OTHERS
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Assudani, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri
Mudit Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent(s)/caveat.
Shri Sumeet Samvatsar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 8 to 13.
........................................................................................................................
MISC. APPEAL No. 3877 of 2025
SMT. SHAILAJARAJE PUAR W/O SHRI C. NARAYAN
Versus
SMT. GAYATRIRAJE PUAR AND OTHERS
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri
Mudit Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Vijay Kumar Assudani, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to
3.
Shri Sumeet Samvatsar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal, learned counsel for the respondents No. 10 to
15.
........................................................................................................................
MISC. APPEAL No. 5445 of 2025
SHRI VIKAS BHAUSHEB ROHOKALE AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SHALIJARE PUAR AND OTHERS
.............................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 27-01-2026
11:05:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351
3 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri
Mudit Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
........................................................................................................................
ORDER
Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi Having regard to the similitude of controversy commonality of orders involved in all these Misc. Appeals, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.
02. These Misc. Appeals have been preferred by Appellants (Defendants No. 6 and Defendant No. 7, Defendants No. 1 to 3, Plaintiff and Defendant No. 10 to Defendant No. 15 respectively in RCS No.101A/2021) under Order 43 Rule 1(r) r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred for short „CPC‟) assailing the impugned order dated 11.01.2025 and 28.03.2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Dewas in RCSA No. 101/2021 whereby the application filed by Respondent No. 1/Appellant-Plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC( I.A. No 1/2021 and I.A. No 2/2025) were allowed and the Defendants No. 1 to 7 (respondents No. 1 to 7 herein) were restrained from alienating the suit properties shown in Annexure No I, II and III annexed with the plaint, by order dated 11.01.2025 and Defendants No. 10 to 15 (respondents No. 10 to 15 herein) also restrained from alienating the suit property mentioned in serial No. 26 of Schedule-1 annexed Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 4 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 with the plaint, till final adjudication of the suit by order dated 28.03.2025. In order dated 11.01.2025 in para-51, it was further made clear that properties mentioned in Schedule-I at serial No. 26 to 33 annexed with the plaint have already been sold either by present Defendant No. 1 to 3 or by late Shri Tukoji Rao Puar, hence, the above order of temporary injunction shall not be applicable to the above-mentioned properties with further clarification that some movable properties like gold, silver, furniture and jewelleries whose amount and number is not certain and also not admitted by the Defendants, hence this interim injunction will also be not applicable to the above movable properties.
03. It is also not in dispute that late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnajirao Puar was the last king of the Dewas Senior Estate passed away to heavenly aboard on 21.01.1999 and was survived by 3 daughters (Plaintiff Smt. Shailajaraje Puar, Defendant No. 4 Smt. Uttararaje Patankar & Defendant No. 5 Smt. Devikaraje Phalke and only son late Shri Tukoji Rao Puar, who left for heavenly aboard on 19.06.2015 survived by Defendant No. 1, 2 & 3 are wife, son and daughter (legal heirs). Defendants No. 6 & 7 are religious and charitable Trusts created by late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar on 02.03.1969 and 01.11.1971. Another Trust Shrimant Jagderao Anandrao Pawar Vishwasrao Senadhu-Randhar for religious and charitable purposes was created by Shrimant Maharaj Jagderao Puar on 04.07.1956 for the properties situated at Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 5 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 Village - Supa, Ahmed Nagar, Maharashtra (which is not party in the present suit).
04. Other facts in nutshell are that Civil Suit No. RCS 101A/2021 was filed by the plaintiff Shailajaraje Puar, one of the legal heirs of late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar seeking declaration of her 1/4th share in the disputed properties (as detailed in Schedules annexed with plaint), for partition, possession, permanent injunction, mesne profit and ancillary reliefs in respect of ancestral and self acquired property of late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar, former ruler of Dewas Senior Estate. It has been pleaded that late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar died intestate leaving behind three daughters- Smt Shailajaraje Puar-plaintiff, Smt Devikaraje-Defendant No4, Smt Uttararaje- Defendant No.5 and one son late Shri Tukoji Rao Puar. Defendants No. 6 & 7 are religious and charitable trusts created by late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar. The plaintiff asserts that the suit property consists of ancestral properties, self acquired immovable properties, movable assets, businesses, rental income, bonds, shares, debentures, valuable articles and jewelleries, all detailed in Schedules annexed to the plaint. It is averred that several businesses and income generating properties were established and managed from the ancestral funds and that Defendants No. 1 to 3 are in exclusive possession and enjoyment thereof earning substantial monthly income Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 6 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 without accounting for or distributing the plaintiffs lawful share. After demise of late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar, the suit properties were managed by late Shri Tukojirao Puar and after his death in 19th June, 2015, Defendant No. 1 assumed control and management. According to the plaintiff, no lawful partition or family settlement has ever taken place. Allegations have been made that certain properties were illegally transferred or mutated in favour of Trusts and 3rd parties and a will dated 06.06.1988 allegedly executed by late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar and subsequent transfers are wide illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. In Civil Suit Plaintiff claimed following reliefs:-
"I. "Declaration of 1/4th share of Plaintiff in the suit property.
II. Declaration of the Will dated 06.06.1988 as null and void.
III. Declaration of the right of the plaintiff to be appointed as a Trustee of Shrimant Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar Vishwasrao Senadhu-Randhar Religious and Charitable Trust.
IV. Declaration of transfer of properties in favour of the Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 Trusts as mentioned in Schedule III as null and void.
V. Decree for Partition by metes and bounds and Possession of 1/4th share in suit property.
VI. Decree for sharing 1/4th share from the Sale Proceeds received by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 or inherited by them from Late Shri Tukojirao Puar.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351
7 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 VII. Decree for sharing 1/4th share in the Mesne Profit earned by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from the properties of Late Shri Krishnajirao Puar.
VIII. Permanent Injunction against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 restraining them from alienating or creating third party interest by any mode with regard to the suit property.
IX. Cost of the Suit be awarded to the Plaintiff."
05. An application (I.A. No. 1/2021) was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC by the Appellant/plaintiff for granting temporary injunction against Defendants No.1 to 7 restraining them not to alienate or create 3rd party rights over the suit properties till final disposal of the suit, stating that plaintiff has demonstrated and established a prima facie case, balance of convenience in her favour and no harm or injury will be caused to the Defendants No. 1 to 7 if application for temporary injunction is allowed. On the other hand if it is not allowed, grave harm and injury would be caused to the plaintiff which cannot be compensated in any other terms. On the basis of above, prayer was made that an order of temporary injunction be issued against the Defendants No. 1 to 7 restraining them not to alienate or create third party rights over the suit‟s scheduled properties till final disposal of the suit. This application was contested by the Defendants on various grounds. Learned trial Court after affording opportunity of hearing, by impugned order dated 11.01.2025 allowed the application as mentioned herein-above. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 8 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25
06. After impleadment of Defendant No. 10 to Defendant No. 15 during pendency of the suit further I.A. No. 02/2025 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC was filed to restrain the aforesaid Defendants not to alienate or create 3rd party right/interest over the one part of the suit properties mentioned at Serial No. 26 of Schedule -I annexed with the plaint situated at Village - Supa, Tehsil- Parner, Dist. Ahmed Nagar, Maharashtra till final disposal of the suit and also to restrain them from raising any construction or changing the nature of the suit property. This I.A. No. 02/2025 was also contested by the aforesaid Defendants and by impugned order dated 28.03.2025 I.A. was allowed restraining Defendants No. 10 to 15 or their agents, servants, or assignee or through any other person the disputed property mentioned in serial No. 26 of Schedule - I till final adjudication of the suit. These two impugned orders i.e. order dated 11.01.2025 and order dated 28.03.2025 have given rise to all the four Miscellaneous Appeals.
07. Appellants in M.A. No. 1309/2025 who are Defendants No. 6 & 7 charitable and religious Trusts have contested order dated 11.01.2025 specifically on the ground that Trusts have been created by Shrimant Maharaj Krishnajraji Rao Puar from their private properties on 02.03.1969 and 01.11.1971 after complying with the formalities as enshrined under M.P. Trusts Act, 1951. Affairs of the Trusts and its properties can be challenged only in a Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 9 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 suit filed under Section 8 of the Act, 1951 and it cannot be challenged by the instant suit filed under general law Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that to after more than 50 years of creation of these Trusts. Plaintiff was not coparcener in the properties transferred to Trusts, therefore, neither she can challenge formation of the Trusts nor she can seek any injunction to prejudice of purpose and affairs of the Trusts. This factual and legal position has not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order, hence the order is bad-in-law and needs interference by allowing this Miscellaneous Appeal.
08. Appellants in M.A. No. 990/2025 i.e. Defendants No. 1 to 3 legal heirs of late Shrimant Tukojirao Puar assails both the orders dated 11.01.2025 and 28.03.2025 passed on applications filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC by the Plaintiff in the suit assail the impugned orders on the following grounds:-
"a) Father of plaintiff Late Shri Krishnajirao Puar has died on 21.01.1999 and the suit has been filed on 12.08.2021, after delay of 22 years and the suit is hopelessly belated.
b) Plaintiff is not in possession of any of the disputed properties.
c) A person, who had kept quite for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties exclusively would not be entitled to an order of injunction.
d) The will dated 06.06.1988 executed by Late Shri Krishnajirao Puar has been challenged by the plaintiff in the present suit after a long period of 33 years.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 10 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25
e) Plaintiff has asked for granting temporary injunction also against defendant No. 6 & 7 who are the Public Trusts but, both the Trusts are not represented through registrar of public trust of their own place and in absence of their being parties no injunction can be granted against defendant No. 6 & 7.
f) Rights of the plaintiff are duly protected by the effect of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
g) Defendant No. 1 to 3 have been enjoying the fruits of the properties and no dispute was ever raised by the plaintiff in this regard and in this condition if any temporary injunction is issued against defendants a grave and serious prejudice will be caused to them.
h) By way of temporary injunction a settle position of suit property cannot be unsettled.
i) Plaintiff is merely trying to blackmail and harass the defendant No. 1 to 3 by dragging the suit properties into unnecessary litigation.
j) Plaintiff suit is frivolous and baseless and is not supported by any iota of evidence."
09. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3877/2025 filed by plaintiff herself assails impugned order dated 28.03.2025 passed on her I.A. No. 02/2025 on the ground that despite their being prayer in relief clause of her application for restraining Defendants No. 10 to 15 from raising construction or changing nature of the suit property, learned trial Court in the aforesaid order in para 15 mentioning that Plaintiff had not sought any injunction regarding construction over the suit property, passed injunction order only to the effect that Defendants Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 11 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 No. 10 to 15 either themselves or through their agent, servant or assignee or through any other person shall not alienate the disputed property and did not restrain the aforesaid Defendants/Respondents for raising construction or changing the nature of suit property which is a perverse finding, hence by way of this appeal pray for the relief which though asked in her application, has not been granted.
10. In Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5445/2015 Appellants, Defendants No. 10 to 15 in the Civil Suit have prayed for allowing their appeal and setting aside impugned order dated 28.03.2025 on the ground that they are bonafide purchasers for consideration from Defendants No. 1 to 3 and were not in knowledge of any litigation pending coupled with the fact that on the date of purchase of the property i.e. 02.11.2022. There was no injunction order in existence restricting purchase of the property. They further submit that they have spent crores of rupees and on this stage if they are not allowed to raise construction and alienate the property, they will incur huge losses which cannot be recovered by any means.
11. Learned senior counsel Shri Veer Kumar Jain appearing on behalf of Appellants/Defendants No. 6 & 7 Trusts submits that the learned trial Court has committed serious legal and factual error in passing the impugned order of temporary injunction against the Trusts, on the ground that these Trusts have Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 12 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 been created by last ruler of Dewas Senior Estate more than 50 years ago by transferring his exclusive properties to the Trusts for religious and charitable purposes. In the lifetime of Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar, his daughters and son could not have claimed any right in his properties which were transferred to Trusts. After more than 5 decades of formation of trusts and transfer of properties to them by late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar, it cannot be challenged by his survivors who were not having any right in his properties. He further submits that one more Trust Shrimant Jagderao Anandrao Pawar Vishwasrao Senadhu-Randhar Religious and Charitable Trust created on 04.07.1956 at Village - Supa, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra has not been arraigned as respondent in the present suit, hence no relief can be claimed against that Trust.
11.1 Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that properties given to Trusts were the personal properties of late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar, therefore, neither any objection can be raised by his legal heirs in this behalf nor plaintiff or anyone else as of right can claim to be included therein as Trustee. Inviting attention of this Court towards section 8 of M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred for short „the Act of 1951‟) he submits that against a Trust, relief can be claimed only in a suit instituted under Section 8 of the Trusts Act which prescribes six months limitation period for bringing a suit. By way of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 13 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 instant suit filed under Code of Civil Procedure which is general law, no challenge can be given to the activities of Trust as Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 provides a special mechanism in the act itself. The present suit filed by the plaintiff after more than 50 years of formation of Trust is also hopelessly barred by limitation. To buttress his submissions, reliance has been placed on judgment passed by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Shri Chander Kant (1977) 1 SCC 257 and para 12 of judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Asharam Dixit vs. Harinarayan 2007(4) M.P.L.J.251. Further reliance on the judgment by coordinate Bench of this Court has been placed in Prahlad Kushwaha & Anr. Vs. Rani Devmati & Ors. 2012(3) M.P.L.J. 673.
11.2 Inviting attention of this Court towards relief No. VIII in relief clause of the suit, learned Sr. Counsel further submits that in Civil Suit permanent injunction has been sought only against Defendants No. 1 to 5 for restraining them from alienating or creating third party interest by any mode with regard to the suit property. Hence, Defendant No. 6 and Defendant No. 7 could not have been restrained by way of temporary injunction as no relief of permanent injunction was sought against them. To buttress his submissions that when no permanent injunction can be granted under Section 38 & 41 of Specific Relief Act as not asked for against Defendant No.6 and 7, no temporary Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 14 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 injunction can be granted. He has invited attention of this Court towards amendment by the State of M.P. in Order 39 Rule 2 CPC, along with provision as contained in Section 41 Clause (i) & (j) of Specific Relief Act. 11.3. Further inviting attention of this Court towards para-2, 4, 5, 14, 17 & 22 of impugned order dated 01.11.2025, learned Sr. Counsel submits that observation of learned trial Court with regard to prima facie case in favour of plaintiff is illegal as plaintiff was sitting over her alleged rights in the disputed properties for more than 5 decades from the construction of the Trusts. In this regard, he has also submitted that Registrar, Public Trusts, who is necessary party in a suit relating to Trust has not been arraigned and, therefore, suit itself is not maintainable and in such circumstances, no prima facie case can be said to be established in her favour. Since Defendants No. 6 & 7 are religious public trusts carrying out charitable activities and if they are restrained from improving alienating properties to advance the charitable purpose, the whole purpose of creating Trusts will be frustated and thereby causing them irreparable loss which cannot be recovered afterwards by any means. To buttress his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment by the Apex Court in Kishoresinh Ratansinh Jadeja vs. Maruti Corporation & Ors. (2009) 11 SCC
229. He further submits that owner cannot be deprived of deriving benefit from his own properties coupled with the fact that transfer is protected by Section 52 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 15 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 if plaintiff succeeds in her suit though it is remote possibility.
11.4. Learned senior counsel further submits that even if suit is not time barred, but due to delayed action and unjustified conduct, plaintiff is not entitled for discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction. Learned counsel further relying upon para 21 & 22 of the judgment by the Apex Court in Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Vs. T. Ramachandra & ors. (2008) 11 SCC 1 submits that even if three elements i.e. existence of prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience are established, but if the conduct of party as conduct of plaintiff in the present case is not honest fair and delayed approach to Court would disentitle her from claiming temporary injunction. To strengthen his submissions, he has placed reliance upon para 15 & 16 of the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajesh Mishra vs. Ram Villas Singh Kushwaha 2015(2) M.P.L.J. 697. Further placing reliance upon para 53, 64, 67,69, 70, 71-74, 77, 81, 82, 85, 88-90, 100 & 101 of the judgment in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernades vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (dead) through LRs. (2012) 5 SCC 370 submits that Court must endeavour to find the truth while granting temporary injunction conditions must be imposed. False and frivolous litigation in property matter should be discouraged. To buttress his submissions that in case of Trust properties, the only remedy for an aggrieved Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 16 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 person is to file suit under Section 8 of M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 and the suit can be brought only within a period of six months from the cause of action and remedy to file suit under general law i.e. under Code of Civil Procedure is not available. To buttress this point, he has placed reliance upon para 6 to 10 & 14 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bismilla Sab Mahboob Sab & Ors. Vs. Habib Miyan Ahmad Miyan (S.A. No. 691/1959, decided on 19.01.1962) 1962 M.P.L.J. 809 and Prahlad Kshwaha vs. Rani Devmati & Ors. 2012(3) M.P.L.J. 673. On these miscellaneous contentions, learned counsel urges the Court to allow the Misc. Appeal filed by the Defendants and set aside the impugned injunction order dated 11.01.2025 and order dated 28.03.2025 passed against Appellants/Defendants.
12. Learned counsel Shri Vijay Assudani appearing on behalf of the Appellants in M.A. No.1309/2025/Defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit submits that properties in dispute were undisputedly previously owned by Shrimant Maharaj Krishnaraji Rao Puar, last ruler of Dewas Senior Estate. These properties were owned by him exclusively as being sovereign ruler. No provisions of Hindu Succession Act is applicable for inheriting these properties. Section 5(ii) of Hindu Succession Act is relevant for the purpose which is reproduced as under:-
"5. Act not to apply to certain properties.-
(ii) any estate which descends to a single heir by the terms of any covenant or agreement entered into by the Ruler of any Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 17 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 Indian State with the Government of India or by the terms of any enactment passed before the commencement of this Act."
12.1 Learned Counsel inviting attention of this Court towards Annexure
- O dated 31.08.1949 a covenant signed between the Union of India and erstwhile Princely Estate including Estate of Dewas Senior of M.A. No. 990/2025 submits that Rule of Primogeniture is applicable for the properties involved in Covenant, Memorandum of Personal privileges of Rulers of the Merged and Integrated states and list of Private properties of the Rulers of integrating the State of Madhya Bharat. He has further invited attention of this Court towards Clause 13 at Page - 195, Page - 200 whereon Serial No. 3 Dewas (senior) has been mentioned in Salute States, Page No. 202 of this document whereon list of private properties of late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnaraji Rao Puar of Dewas Senior Estate have been mentioned and also drawn attention towards Article XIV at page No. 2014 of the Covenant which provides guarantee for succession according to law and customs to the gaddi of each Covenant Estate and to the personal rights, privileges and title to the ruler thereof. To buttress his submissions in this regard, learned counsel has relied upon para - 65, 74 & 76 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of His Highness Maharaja Pratap Singh vs. Her Highness Maharani Sarojini Devi & Ors. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 734. In the relevant paragraphs it has been mentioned that Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 18 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 impartibility and primogeniture, in relation to zamindari estates or other impartible estates are to be established by custom, in the case of a sovereign Ruler, they are presumed to exist and this rule of primogeniture continued even after 1947-48. On these submissions, he tried to build up his case that in the properties previously owned by late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnaraji Rao Puar, the last ruler of Dewas Senior Estate, no share can be claimed by the plaintiff merly being her legal heir.
12.2. Learned Counsel further submits that even otherwise Shrimant Maharaj Krishnaraji Rao Puar in his lifetime on 06.06.1988 executed a Will in favour of his only son late Shri Tukojirao Puar whereby he bequeathed of his properties in favour of his son. This will came into force on demise of Shrimant Maharaj Krishnaraji Rao Puar on 21.01.1999. Further, it is also not in dispute that all the properties of Shrimant Maharaj Krishnaraji Rao Puar were managed and owned by late Shri Tukoji Rao Puar during his lifetime and after his death, these properties are being owned by his wife, daughter and son (Defendants No. 1 to 3). In the lifetime of Shrimant Maharaj Krishnaraji Rao Puar and even thereafter in the lifetime of late Shri Tukoji Rao Puar, she never claimed any right as her share in the properties which were malafidely put into dispute in the present suit which has been filed near about 22 years after the death of last ruler of the Dewas Senior Estate. As delay defeats discretionary and equitable relief Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 19 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 of injunction, no temporary injunction could have been granted in favour of the Plaintiff.
12.3 Learned Counsel further submits that by mere dismissal of application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 u/s 10 of CPC by the trial Court and the High Court in itself do not create any prima facie case in favour of Plaintiff. He further submits that considerations for adjudicating application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC are totally different, therefore, it cannot be argued that after dismissal of application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on behalf of Appellants in this appeal by the High Court, those objections cannot be taken while considering the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. To buttress his submissions, he has placed reliance in para 21 & 22 of the judgment passed in Mandali Ranganna vs. T. Ramachandra (2008) 11 SCC 1 and on para 30 of the judgment by Apex Court in Ram Pravesh Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar a& Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 381. 12.4 Learned Counsel further submits that temporary injunction being equitable relief, if Plaintiff has not come with clean hands and slept over his rights for a considerable period of time, he cannot be granted relief of temporary injunction even if there exists prima facie case, balance of convenience and even irreparable injury to him. To buttress his submissions, reliance has been placed Mandali Rangana (supra). He further submits that grant of injunction in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 20 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 favour of the Plaintiff has caused irreparable loss to the actual owners and possession holders of the disputed property, who are Defendants No. 1 to 3 and for Trust properties, these are Defendants No. 6 & 7.
12.5 He further submits that Section 52A of Transfer of Properties Act, 1882 is also there to protect the interests of the Plaintiff for alienation made during pendency of the suit. He further submits that injunction cannot be a tool for unsettling settled position with regard to the disputed properties which are admittedly in the hands of Defendants No. 1 to 3 and Defendants No. 6 & 7 and also some portion of the land which has been sold to Defendants No. 10 to 15. He further submits that suit has been maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for attainment of oblique designs and intentions, hence Plaintiff was not entitled for any relief even her suit is not maintainable. Further relying upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Kashi Math Samsthan vs. Shrimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy, (2010) 1 SCC 689, he urges the Court to allow the appeal filed on behalf of Defendants No. 1 to 3 and set aside the impugned order dated 11.01.2025 passed in favour of the Plaintiff.
13. Learned counsel Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal appearing for the appellants in M.A. No. 5445/2025, submits that they are bonafide purchasers of the properties for consideration. There was no order of injunction in favour of the Plaintiff when Appellants purchased the property i.e by sale deed dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 21 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 02.11.2022. He further submits that Appellants have incurred expenses running in Crores for improvement of the property and now if they are not allowed to develop and alienate, it will cause enormous loss to them which cannot be recovered in terms of money and otherwise therefore, prays for allowing their appeal by setting aside the order dated 28.03.2025. It is also worth mentioned here that counsel for Appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 990/2025 and Appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 5445/2025 after arguing their specific defences have adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 1309/2025 which has been argued by learned Sr. Counsel Shri Veer Kumar Jain.
14. Per contra supporting the impugned order dated 11.01.2025 and order dated 28.03.2025 to the extent temporary injunction against alienation has been granted in favour of Plaintiff, learned Senior Counsel Shri R.S. Chhabra submits that learned trial Court after going through the material made available on record has passed the impugned orders which cannot be interfered with in these Misc. Appeals. He further submits that being legal heir of late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar, plaintiff has every right to claim her share in the properties which were earlier in the hands of late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar and thereafter in the possession of Defendants No. 1 to 3 after death of Shri Tukojirao Puar.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 22 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 14.1 Learned counsel further submits that late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar died in the year 1999 and thereafter there was no dispute between the plaintiff, Defendant sisters and brother Shri Tukojirao Puar, therefore, there was no need to bring the suit for partition. In the year 2016 when Plaintiff came to know that the Pune property mentioned on Serial No. 7 of Schedule - II was illegally mutated in the name of Shri Tukoji Rao Puar, immediately after acquiring knowledge of the fact, she raised objection in this regard and thereafter when Plaintiff started enquiring about the details of the suit properties in January, 2018, Defendants No. 1 to 3 denied access to Plaintiff over the suit properties for the first time. Thereafter on the basis of alleged Will dated 06.06.1988 in favour of Shri Tukojirao Puar, probate proceedings were initiated in the Court of A lot and Ratlam on 05.07.2018 when she came to know about the Will for the first time. Vide legal notice dated 29.06.2019 plaintiff, Defendant No. 4 & 5 demanded the list of properties inherited by late Shri Tukojirao Puar and list of properties inherited by Defendant No. 1-3 from late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar and called upon them for partition of the suit properties. When discussion for settlement of dispute between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1-5 on 28.01.2021 and 31.05.2025 then the suit for the reliefs claimed has been filed which cannot be said to be time barred. Thereafter, family discussion for settlement of the dispute between the Plaintiff Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 23 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 and Defendants No. 1 to 5 took place on 28.01.2021 and on 31.05.2021 which ultimately failed.
14.2 Learned senior counsel further on the point of prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff submits that plea of rule of Primogeniture is not established by the document i.e. covenant Annexure „O‟which has been filed by the appellants in M.A. No 1309/2025. Perusal of this document in itself reveals that it was signed by female ruler Smt Pramilaraje Puar.Further affidavit sworn in by late Shri Tukoji Rao Puar and filed by him while filing is his nomination for Assembly Elections and copy of this affidavit has been with I.A. No 1557of 2025 filed in MA No. 990/2025 reveals that Shri Tukoji Rao Puar in disclosed properties shown his portion share and not his absolute and sole ownership which belies applicability of rule of Primogeniture.Further after death of Shri Tukoji Rao Puar in year 2015 name of his wife Smt Gayatriraje Puar, son Vikram Puar and daughter Kanikaraje Puar has been putated in revenue records, which again defeats the plea of applicability of rule of Primogeniture. Learned Sr.counsel building his case on this submits that rule of Primogeniture is not applicable, hence prima faciae case is in favour of the plaintiff. 14.3 Learned Sr.counsel further submits that applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC were filed on behalf of the Defendants and the same were dismissed by the trial Court and thereafter when these orders were challenged in revision Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 24 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 before the Hon‟ble High Court in Civil Revision No.391/2021 and Civil Revision No.453/2021 the same were dismissed vide common order dated 06.04.2023. Only Defendants No. 6 & 7 went in SLP before the Apex Court and other Defendants accepted the order of this Court which attained finality against them. Only Defendants No. 6 & 7 vide order dated 12.05.2023 in SLP No. 9357-9376/2023 have obtained an order that grounds taken under Order 7 Rule 11 will remain open and will be decided by the trial Court at appropriate stage. Similarly application filed on behalf of defendants u/s 10 CPC for staying suit proceedings till pendency of probate proceeding was also dismissed. Dismissal of these applications under Order 7 Rule 11 and u/s 10 CPC in itself reveal that plaintiff succeeded in raising serious issue for trial, making out a prima facie case in her favour. Learned Sr. Counsel to get placed reliance on the judgment by this court in Smt. Rajni vs. Rais (M.A. No. 2314/2016), and paragraph 9 in Mahendra Yadav vs. Ashok Yadav 2019 SCC Online MP 6526, 14.4 Learned senior counsel further submits that for the sake of argument it is found that Rule of primogeniture still exists, it can not be relied upon at the stage of considering relief of temporary injunction is during trial by leading cogent evidence.
14.5 Learned counsel has also vehemently assailed the validity of the will dated 06/06/1988 allegedly executed by late Shrimant Maharaj Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 25 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 Krishnarajirao Puar. On this point, he submits that this will was neither brought in the knowledge of the Plaintiff in the lifetime of Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar nor after his demise on 22/01/1999 till 2018. It saw light of the day only when probate proceedings were instituted in the year 2018 near about 19 years after its alleged execution. This will was not brought to the light even in the life time of Shri Tukoji Rao Puar which in itself reveals that will is shrouded in suspicion can be acted upon. This disputed will is also to be proved during trial by way of evidence and it cannot be relied upon while deciding application for temporary injunction.
14.6 . Learned Sr. Counsel dilating on power of appellate court to interfere in the order passed by trial court submits that appellate reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material.The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it has considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. Learned Sr.Counsel for this proposition placed reliance on the judgment by Apex Court in Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India (P) Ltd. 1990 Supp SCC 727, Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. S.L. Vaswani & Anr. (2010) 2 SCC 142, Ramakant Ambalala Choksi v/s Harish Ambalal Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 26 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 Choksi & Ors. (2024) 11 SCC 351 and order by this court in M/s. Tirathdas Shaukatrai Project Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jinesh Chandra & Ors. M.A. No. 7477/2023 (Order dated 21.07.2025). On these submissions, he submits that learned trial Court has rightly granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff which cannot be interfered with by way of this appeal.
15. In M.A. No. 3877/2025, learned senior counsel Shri R.S. Chhabra appearing on behalf of Appellant(s)/Plaintiff submits that when it came to knowledge of the Plaintiff that Defendants No. 1 & 3 are alienating the disputed properties in the instant case, she arraigned Defendants No. 10 to 15 as Defendants and after impleading them, filed an application I.A. No. 02/2025 for claiming temporary injunction against them for restraining them from alienating the properties and also restraining them from changing nature of the properties sold to them by way of raising any construction, but learned trial Court returned a perverse finding in para - 15 of order dated 28.03.2025 by mentioning that no relief with regard to restraining Defendents No 10 to 15 from raising construction over the land sold to Defendants No. 10 to 15 has been asked for, hence did not grant relief to that effect. This finding cannot be sustained as all the three ingredients required for granting temporary injunction in favour of the party has been established by the Plaintiff, therefore, he prays for allowing his appeal by restraining the Defendants No. 10 to 15 from raising construction Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 27 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 over the disputed property and also for changing the nature of the property. Learned Sr counsel placed reliance upon para 10 of the judgment passed in Maharwal Khewaji Trust vs. Baldev Dass (2004) 8 SCC 48,and para 8 and 9 of judgment by Division Bench of this court in Satish Kumar Khandelwal vs. Rajendra Jain 2015(2) MPLJ 181
16. In reply to above submissions by Learned Sr. Counsel Shri R. S. Chhabra, Learned Sr. Counsel Shri Veer Kumar Jain submitted that mere dismissal of application filed by the defendants under S. 10 CPC and Or. 7 Rule11 CPC in itself doesnot establish primafacie case in favour of the plaintiff. Learned Counsel Shri Vijay Ashudani in reply submits that covenant Annexure „O‟ is a public document and its genuineness is not under dispute, therefore even if its certified copy is not filed, it makes no difference as it contains stipulations proving existence of rule of Primogeniture which can be seen even at the stage of consideration of relief of temporary injunction. He further submits that when this document was signed late Maharaja Krshnaji Rao Puar was minor, therefore it was signed by his mother Pramilaraje Puar on his behalf. He further submits that affidavit sworn in by late Shri Tukoji Rao Puar and filed by him while filing is his nomination for Assembly Elections does not belie Rule of primogeniture in any way. Reference of his „Portion‟ share in property is in different context, might have been shown in reference to his son‟s share in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 28 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 the properties shown. Mutation of names of his wife, son and daughter in revenue record is only for fiscal purposes and not for proving ownership. On these submissions in reply learned counsel refutes the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff.
17. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
18. As far the present Misc. Appeal which has been filed by Defendant No.6 and Defendant No. 7 religious Trust formed by late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar is concerned, it is to be noted that these Trusts were formed respectively in the year 1960 & 1971 (1969 & 1971) by the last ruler of Dewas Senior Estate late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar, who was exclusive and sole owner of his properties. Formation of these properties has not been challenged by filing a suit under Section 8 of the Act, 1951. Section 8 of M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 provides a limitation of six months for bringing a suit there under. For ready reference, aforesaid Section 8 of the Act, 1951 is reproduced as under:-
"8. Civil suit against the finding of the Registrar. (1) Any working trustee or person havig interest in a public trust or any property found to be trust property, aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar under section 6 may, within six months from the date of the publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of section 7, institute a suit in a Civil Court to have such finding set aside or modified.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 29 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 (2) In every such suit, the civil court shall give notice to the State Government through the Registrar, and the State Government, if it so desires, shall be made a party to the suit.
(3) On the final decision of the suit, the Registrar shall, if necessary, correct the entries made in the register in accordance with such decision."
19. If a suit filed under the aforesaid Act brought within the period of Limitation as fixed under S.8 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 succeeds the relevant changes are to be made by the Registrar of Public Trusts, who is admittedly not a party in the present suit. It is well settled that when a special mechanism has been provided for bringing a suit under a Special Act like M.P. Public Trusts Act, then suit for the said purpose cannot be brought within general law i.e. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or any other general law. Admittedly, no such suit under S.8 of Act, 1951 has been instituted by the plaintiff.
20. From perusal of the relief clause of the plaint in the present suit, it is apparent that no relief of permanent injunction has been sought against the Defendants No. 6 & 7. Relevant relief clause (VIII) which runs as under:-
"VIII. Permanent Injunction against the Defendant no. 1 to 5 restraining them from alienating or creating third party interest by any mode with regard to the suit property."Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 30 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25
21. Section 41(i) and (j) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 provide that when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding and when conduct of plaintif or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the court, then relief under this Act cannot be provided. Section 41 Clause (i) & (j) of Specific Relief Act. are reproduced as under:-
"41. Injunction when refused. - An injunction cannot be granted-
..............................................................
(i) when the conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the court;
(j) when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter."
Amendment incorporated by the State of M.P. in Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 39 is also to be noted here wherein it has been said that no such injunction can be granted where no perpetual injunction could be granted. Relevant para is mentioned as under:-
"State Amendments-[Madhya Pradesh].- In Order 39, rule 2, in sub-rule (2), insert the following proviso:-
„Provided that no such injunction shall be granted-
(a) Where no perpetual injunction could be granted in view of the provisions of section 38 and section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963); or"
22. Learned Court below has failed to note that in the relief clause VIII of the suit,no permanent injunction was claimed against Defendants No. 6 & 7, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 31 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 hence in view of the provisions as mentioned herein above, temporary injunction could not have been granted against Defendants No. 6 & 7 and by doing so, learned trial Court has fell into error. It is also pertinent to mention here that relief of temporary injunction being discretionary and equitable relief can also not be granted when the Plaintiff has slept over his rights for decades together and conduct of the plaintiff or his agents has been such as to disentitle her to the assistance of the court. After passing of near about more than 50 years of formation of the Trusts Ex. D/6 & D/7, and after 22 years of demise of his father late Shrimant Krishnaji Rao Puar, this challenge has been put forth by way of the Civil Suit RCS 101A/2021 which can certainly not come to the rescue of the plaintiff as far as relief against these Trusts which are Defendants No. 6 & 7 is concerned. Learned trial Court has failed to into account the aforesaid legal impediments while passing the impugned order dated 11/01/2025. The aforesaid legal points raised on behalf of Defendants No. 6 & 7 could not be rebutted by the respondent/plaintiff.
23. There is vast difference of considerations while adjudicating the applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. It is well settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court that while considering application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only plaint allegations and documents filed therewith are to be looked into. Neither any Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 32 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 pleading in written statement nor any other document which is not related to W.S. can be looked into while adjudicating application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Recently, this view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case of Mukund Bhawan Trust & Ors. Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle & Anr, (2024) 15 SCC 675. Relevant para-13 runs as under:-
"13. As settled in law, when an application to reject the plaint is filed, the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed therewith alone are germane. The averments in the application can be taken into account only to consider whether the case falls within any of the sub-rules of Order VII Rule 11 by considering the averments in the plaint. The Court cannot look into the written statement or the documents filed by the defendants. The Civil Courts including this Court cannot go into the rival contentions at that stage."
24. Hon‟ble the Apex Court in para-30 case of M. Gurudas & Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 367 has taken cognizance of difference of considerations while adjudicating application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and application for grant of injunction. Relevant paragraph 30 is aptly reproduced as under:-
"30. At the stage of grant of injunction, however, the effect of dismissal of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not be of much significance. The plaint in question could not have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court at that stage could not have gone into any disputed question of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 33 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 fact but while passing an order on grant of injunction indisputably it can. In other words, while making endeavours to find out a prima facie case, the court could take into consideration the extent of plaintiffs' share in the property, if any."
25. In the light of aforesaid view of the Apex Court, contentions raised on behalf of plaintiff by learned Sr. Counsel Shri Chhabra cannot be accepted. All legal and factual arguments are permissible while arguing these Miscellaneous Appeals and order dated 06/04/2023 in Civil Revision No. 391/2021 (Shrimant Gayatriraje Puar & Ors. Vs. Shrimati Shailajaraje Puar & Ors) can not be considered as prohibition to raise points already raised by defendants while arguing there application under O 7 R 11 CPC.
26. Will dated 06.06.1988 (Annexure-B filed in MA No. 990/2025) executed by late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar in favour of his only son late Shri Tukojirao Puar has also been unsuccessfully been brought under shadow of doubt by the Plaintiff. Here it is very pertinent to refer affidavit by Smt. Devikaraje Phalke, one of sisters of late Shri Tukojirao Puar and Plaintiff Smt. Shalijaraje Puar, who is Defendant No. 5, has filed an affidavit (Annexure- L filed in MA No. 990/2025) in probate proceedings initiated by Smt Gayatriraje Puar in support of her application u/o 1 R. 10 for deleting her name from the array of defendants, whereon she was cross-examined under Order 19 Rule 2 CPC, has accepted that Will brought under dispute has actually been Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 34 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 executed by his father late Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar under his signatures (in favour of his only son late Shri Tukojirao Puar) and it is his last Will about his properties.
26.1 Misc. Petition 311/2023 was preferred before this Court challenging order permitting cross examination of Smt Devikaraje and Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.02.2023 has dismissed contentions of plaintiff Smt. Shalijaraje Puar over cross-examination of her sister Smt. Devika Raje over her affidavit. This order of High Court was upheld by the Apex Court by order dated 20.03.2023 in SLP (C) No. 4860/2023. Thus, for the purpose of adjudication of temporary injunction all the contentions raised by plaintiff challenging execution of this Will by Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar are demolished in entirity and are of no assistance to Plaintiff in proving that she has share in the disputed property as her father died intestate. It is further to be kept in mind that this affidavit has been filed by Smt Devikaraje to the detriment of her own interest in the disputed properties being legal heir of Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar and in this backdrop her statement in cross examination over her affidavit mentioning the will as genuine and last will of Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar assumes enormous probative value in determining genuiness of the will.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 35 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 26.2 In this background, allegations levelled by the Plaintiff against genuineness of the Will can not be sustained and proves falsity of plaintiff‟s case and her stand in this regard is found baseless. Not only plaintiff has kept quite for a considerably long time and filed the present suit after 22 years of death of his father Shrimant Maharaj Krishnarajirao Puar as noted by the trial court itself in paragraph 35 of impugned order dated 11/01/2025 but her conduct is also found doubtful and it is apparent that she has not come with clean hands. At this stage, observations by Hon‟ble the Apex Court in para-21 & 22 of the case of Mandali Rangana (supra) become more relevant which are reproduced as under:-
"21. While considering an application for grant of injunction, the court will not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation thereto viz. existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties.
22. Grant of injunction is an equitable relief. A person who had kept quiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties exclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of injunction. The court will not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that grant or refusal of injunction has serious consequence depending upon the nature thereof. The courts dealing with such matters must make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties. For the said purpose, application of mind on the part of the courts is imperative. Contentions raised by the parties must be determined objectively."Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 36 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25
27. In case of Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai [(2006) 5 SCC 282] this Court has further elaborated the aforesaid principle. Para-30 of this judgment is reproduced as under:-
"30. The discretion of the court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirements are made out by the plaintiff: (i) existence of a prima facie case as pleaded, necessitating protection of the plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of the plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of the defendant's rights or likely infringement of the defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the plaintiff; and (iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands."
[See also Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd. [(2006) 1 SCC 540] ]
28. In case of Rajesh (supra), Coordinate Bench of this Court has relied upon the observation by the Apex Court in M/s. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Coca Cola Company & Ors. AIR 1995 SCW 3521, wherein it has been held that Court may refuse relief of temporary injunction which is purely equitable if conduct of the party seeking the relief is doubtful. The relevant paragraph runs as under:-
"47. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that in the instant case GBC had approached the High Court for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 37 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 injunction order, granted earlier, to be vacated. Under Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order of interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of the person who seeks an order of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 or Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the ad interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings."
29. In the light of aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation in holding that Plaintiff has utterly failed to prove even prima facie a case in her favour with regard to her share in the disputed properties and possession is certainly has never been with her. Learned Court below has certainly fell in error in considering irrelevant materials and ignoring substantial material while allowing relief of temporary injunction in Plaintiff‟s favour by impugned order dated 11.01.2025 and 28.03.2025. Statement of Smt Devikaraje with regard to aforesaid Will and other settled legal principles have been ignored. In such factual matrix and circumstances, judgments Maharwal Khewaji Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2351 38 M.A. No. 1309/25, 990/25, 3877/25 & M.A. 5445/25 Trust (supra), Satish Kumar Khandelwal (supra), Smt. Rajni (supra), Mahendra Yadav (supra), Wander Ltd. (supra), Skyline Education Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Ramakant Ambalal Choksi (supra) and M/s. Tirathdas Shaukatrai Project Pvt. Ltd. (supra), do not in any way come to the rescue of the Plaintiff. When it is apparent that learned court below has failed to consider effect of S.8 of Act, 1951 with regard to Defendants No 6 and 7 which are religious and charitable trust, aforementioned statement of Smt Devikaraje with regard to will, a very material document in favor of defendant No 1 to3 coupled with the factum of much delayed action by the plaintiff to assert her rights (if any), in the disputed properties, arguments on behalf of plaintiff that appellate court should be slow in interfering in the findings of the court below while granting discretionary relief of temporary injunction is of no consequence.
30. Resultantly MA No 1309/ 2025, MA No 990/2025 and MA No 5445/ 2025 deserves to be and are hereby allowed and MA No 3877/2025 by plaintiff is dismissed as sans merit. Copy of this order be kept in record of all these miscellaneous appeals.
Parties will bear their own costs. Order accordingly.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE Soumya Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN DALAI Signing time: 27-01-2026 11:05:37