Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar dismissed four Miscellaneous First Appeals arising out of an interim injunction granted in a property dispute between the legal heirs of a deceased individual. The Court affirmed the trial court's order that restrained the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff or alienating the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. In doing so, the Court held that the plaintiff had presented sufficient prima facie evidence regarding her marital status, possession of the property, and financial contribution to its acquisition. The Court directed that the interim injunction shall remain in force until final adjudication in the original suit, and concluded that no interference with the trial court’s discretionary order was warranted.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, partition, and injunction, claiming her status as the legally wedded wife of late Imran Khan M.S., the son of the defendants. She asserted that during her marriage, she had transferred substantial sums in both Indian and US currency to her husband's account. These funds were allegedly utilized by the first defendant, her father-in-law, to purchase the disputed property (B-schedule property). The plaintiff further contended that the property was purchased in the name of the first defendant solely as a matter of convenience, since she and her husband were residing abroad at the time of acquisition, with an understanding that it would later be transferred to them.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Tamil Nadu Over ADGP Suspension | You Can’t Do This, This Is Very Demoralising | Shocked By High Court’s Arrest Order

The plaintiff claimed continued possession of the property even after her husband’s death on 20.06.2023, and alleged that the defendants were attempting to dispossess her and alienate the property unlawfully. Consequently, she filed for temporary injunction to prevent such actions.

The defendants, including Mohamed Umar Seeni Ariff Khan and Mrs. Mumtaj Seeni Ariff Khan, disputed the plaintiff’s marital status, asserting that no marriage had taken place between their son and the plaintiff. They denied her claim over the property or possession thereof, maintaining that the entire property was purchased from the funds of the first defendant. They claimed that the plaintiff had merely stayed in the property temporarily during her husband's illness, without any legal or possessory rights.

In response to the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the trial court granted a temporary injunction. The defendants subsequently filed applications under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC seeking to vacate the injunction, which the trial court rejected. These rejections prompted the present set of four appeals.

Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar recorded that "the trial Court has meticulously considered the relevant aspects, particularly the nature of evidence produced at this interlocutory stage." He noted that the plaintiff had produced a marriage certificate executed in the United States, joint bank account statements, WhatsApp message exchanges, photographs, and utility bills to substantiate her claims.

The Court stated in its judgment: "Although the appellants have questioned the legality of marriage certificate under the Foreign Marriage Act, it is the settled position under law that, such a contention would be matter requiring adjudication after full-fledged trial." The Court accepted that circumstantial evidence can establish a prima facie case at this stage.

Significantly, the Court stated an admission by the appellants: "The appellants themselves have in their affidavits filed along with I.A.No.4 and 6 admitted that, plaintiff resided in the suit schedule property with their deceased son and that she was accommodated there by them." This admission, in conjunction with the plaintiff's documentary evidence, supported her claim of possession.

Addressing the contention regarding alleged suppression of earlier proceedings, the Court recorded: "The record shows that, plaintiff has specifically disclosed existence of the earlier suit in the present plaint and has explained that, the same was a bare suit for injunction which was not pressed in light of broader and more comprehensive reliefs sought in the present suit."

Discussing the applicability of the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, the Court observed: "It is important to note that, the Act does not say that, every marriage of an Indian citizen solemnized abroad must necessarily be registered under it." Further, "marriages can still be considered valid based on the personal law applicable to the parties and law of the country where the marriage was performed."

On the scope of the Act, the Court noted: "The intention of the law is not to invalidate genuine marital relationship merely because the parties failed to register a marriage under the enactment." It clarified that such validity becomes a matter of fact requiring trial.

In conclusion, the Court found: "the plaintiff has established a prima facie case in her favour. The balance of convenience undoubtedly tilts with the plaintiffs. If she is dispossessed or if the suit property is alienated during the pendency of the proceedings, she would suffer irreparable injury and cannot be adequately compensated by damages."

Also Read: Bombay High Court : Delay Beyond Party’s Control Excluded Under Registration Act | Directs Registration Of 2018 Sale Agreements | Court Finds Restraint Order Caused Bona Fide Delay

The Court stated: "All the four Misc. First Appeals namely MFA Nos.332/25, 336/25, 458/25 and 489/25 stand dismissed." It further ordered: "The common order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the X Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in OS No.7645/2023 is hereby affirmed."

The Court directed that: "The interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff shall continue to operate until the disposal of the suit." It also held that the alleged procedural defect in the plaint verification was curable: "There is a procedural irregularity curable under law and do not affect merits of the application for temporary injunction."

Justice Huddar concluded: "The trial Court’s discretion exercised under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC therefore calls for no interference being sound reasoned and in conformity with settled legal principles."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Sri. Varadaraj Ranganatha Rao Havaldar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri. Siji Malayil, Advocate

Case Title: Mohamed Umar Seeni Ariff Khan & Anr. vs. Mrs. Tanzia Bano alias Tanzia Banu

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:24423

Case Number: MFA Nos. 332, 336, 458, and 489 of 2025

Bench: Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar