1 Wp no.10672/09 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.10672 of 2009 Chhaya Prakash Chavan ... Petitioner versus Arun Dhondu @ Madhukar Chavan & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. R.B.Jaiswal for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Rikhra for the respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 16th July 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioner (original plaintiff) challenges the order passed by the lower appellate court confirming the order of dismissal of application for interim injunction passed by the trial court. 2. The petitioner had filed a suit for partition in which she filed an application for injunction restraining the defendant from transferring the suit property. The trial court declined to grant an injunction. The lower appellate court has confirmed the order of the trial court refusing the injunction. 2 Wp no.10672/09 3. The plaintiff is a widow of Prakash. There was a previous suit for partition filed by brother of Prakash to which Prakash was a party. In the said suit, a consent decree was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit property in the present suit was not included in the consent terms filed in the previous suit and therefore second suit for partition of the suit property was maintainable. There is a presumption that a Hindu Family is joint but once a partition is proved, disruption of the joint status takes place; there is no presumption in law the partition is only a partial partition. The burden of proving that the previous partition was a partial partition and any property still continues to be a joint family property lies on the person asserting the same. Since the burden has not prima facie been discharged by the petitioner, the Courts below were right in rejecting the injunction. No interference is called for in exercise of a writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)