cra89.26 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 904 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 89 OF 2026 Ruchi Soya Industries Pvt. Ltd. presently Patanjali Foods Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory VERSUS Mandakini Ramhari Chavan and others ... Advocate for the applicant: Mr. Suresh Kant Baxy h/f Mr. Parag P. Shahane Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. A. N. Irpatgire Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 : Mr. S. G. Kawade with Ms. Priyanka Kulkarni ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 25th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. This Civil Revision Application is preferred against an order below Exh.98, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhoom, District Dharashiv (Osmanabad), in Special Civil Suit No. 7 of 2014, dated 20.02.2026, whereby the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be rejected. 2. Learned advocate for the applicant pointed out the plaint and the application at Exh.98 and submitted that the plaintiff, is the wife of defendant No.3, he has sold the suit property to defendant No.1, The wife has filed the suit seeking a perpetual injunction 2026:BHC-AUG:39506 cra89.26 -2- restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to her possession etc. 3. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the plaintiff being a Hindu wife has no right, title or interest in the suit property. She is not a coparcener, she has no locus standi to file the suit and, therefore, no cause of action did arise to file suit. It is further submitted that the suit was not properly valued. Therefore, the application was filed seeking rejection of the plaint. It is further submitted that the reasons and findings recorded in the impugned order are not legal and sustainable, as, a Hindu wife cannot claim any right in such coparcenary property which belonged to her husband, who sold it for legal necessity. Learned advocate for the applicant lastly submitted that the revision application be allowed, the impugned order be set aside by allowing the application at Exh.98 and the plaint be rejected on the grounds stated in the said application. 4. Learned advocate for the applicant is relying upon the following precedential laws:- I) In the case of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaaji (Deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.Rs. and others, in Civil Appeal No. 1382 of 2022, decided on 03.03.2022, in para 9.2, it is held that:- cra89.26 -3- “9.2 In the present case, once the defendant No.1 was held to be the true and absolute owner pursuant to the registered sale deed executed in his favour and the plaintiff was unsuccessful so far as the declaratory relief is concerned, thereafter, it cannot be said that there was a cloud over the title of the plaintiff and/or even the defendant. Therefore, the only relief which survived before the trial court was the consideration of relief of permanent injunction and having been unsuccessful in getting the relief of cancellation of the registered sale deed and the declaration thereof, the relief of permanent injunction could not have been granted by the trial court as well as by the first Appellate Court. This aspect of the case has been lost sight of by the High Court in the second appeal.” II) In the case of Uday Narendra Shah Vs. Narendra Amritlal Shah; AIR 2014 Bom 119, in para 18, it is observed as follows:- “18. The claim by a wife during the life time of the husband in the share and interest which he has as a coparcener in his HUF is wholly premature and completely misconceived. Such bequest under the will does not show the title of the deceased to such property. The deceased, therefore, could not have bequeathed any “monies” as “my share” in the 1/3 share which her husband had in the HUF in which he was a coparcener along with his brothers, father and sons. Consequently the injunction in respect of such property cannot be granted as claimed.” cra89.26 -4- III) In the case of Smt. Gunjan Agrawal vs. Ashish Kumar Gautam and another, First appeal No. 916 of 2026 decided on 25.11.2025, in para 20, it is observed as follows:- “20. It is apparent that the plaintiff is no more the owner of the disputed property, since its ownership has already vested in defendant no.1 through sale deed dated 30.11.2022, which cannot be cancelled by the court for non-payment of sale consideration by the defendant to the plaintiff. Since the main relief of cancellation of sale deed cannot be granted to the plaintiff, even the consequential relief of permanent injunction also cannot be granted to her, for protecting her alleged possession in the disputed property, since the above defendant is the true owner of the disputed property.” 5. Learned advocate for the respondents strongly opposed the Revision Application and submitted that the learned trial Court has passed a well reasoned order. Therefore, no interference is warranted in it. The Respondent pleaded cheating and fraud which are mixed question of law and fact. It is a matter of evidence, which would establish whether a cause of action has arisen or not. It is submitted that the existence of a cause of action is a question of fact and can be ascertained only upon proper adjudication of the case on merits, on the evidence in support of respective contentions of both sides. It is lastly submitted that the revision application be dismissed. cra89.26 -5- 6. Nobody will dispute principles, guidelines and law laid down in all the above precedential laws cited by learned advocate for the applicant. It is well settled that facts of the particular case are decisive to which law is to be applied. Therefore, each case has to be decided on the basis of facts. However, keeping in mind the principles, guidelines and law laid down in the above precedential laws this Court proceeds to decide legality and propriety of the impugned order. 7. It is well settled that the cause of action can be ascertained out of a bundle of facts. The fact of the case discloses a cause of action, that the husband of the plaintiff has executed a sale deed in favour of the applicant/defendant No.1, and she alleges that the said sale deed was executed by cheating and practicing fraud upon her husband. To prove and disprove the fraud parties have to lead evidence. No doubt, a coparcener can challenge such a transaction. But it is not that a member of the joint family cannot challenge the sale deed on the ground of fraud. It certainly affects the right of livelihood of the plaintiff and her other family members even though she has no right to claim partition. Therefore, even though the plaintiff is the Hindu wife of defendant No.3, her right to challenge the sale deed executed by her husband is not barred by Hindu Law. 8. In the judgment of Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaaji cra89.26 -6- (Deceased) through L.Rs. vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) Through L.Rs. and others (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated upon the rights of the parties after the trial Court, the first appellate Court and the High Court had rendered their respective judgments on merits after appreciating the evidence, against which the Civil Appeal was preferred before Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the present case, however, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was filed on the ground that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file suit which requires adjudication on merit and suit is barred as plaintiff has no right to partition. Therefore, the law laid down in the said authority cannot be applied to this case at this stage, unless evidence is adduced. 9. No doubt, in the case of Uday Narendra Shah Vs. Narendra Amritlal Shah (supra), the wife had filed the suit but the facts in that case were that during the life time of the husband, the wife was claiming a share in the property of husband. In this case, the wife is not claiming a partition in the husband’s property. Therefore, the law laid down in the above authority is not helpful to the applicant. 10. In the case of Smt. Gunjan Agrawal vs. Ashish Kumar Gautam and another (supra) the relief of cancellation of the sale cra89.26 -7- deed was claimed by the plaintiff for non payment of sale consideration. In this case the relief of cancellation of the sale deed is not claimed. Hence, the said case law is not applicable to this case. 11. In the present case, the plaintiff has not sought the relief of partition. She has not only claimed the relief of perpetual injunction but has also sought other reliefs. Whether such reliefs can be granted or not is to be adjudicated on the basis of the pleadings and evidence etc. on merit. Having regard to all these factual and legal aspects and the reasons recorded and findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, this Court is of the view that those are legal and correct and do not call for any interference. No case is made out for rejection of plaint 12. For the reasons discussed above, the precedential laws relied upon by the learned advocate for the applicant are not helpful to him and therefore those are not relied upon. The civil revision application deserves to be rejected. It is rejected accordingly. No costs. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/