Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court

No Injunction Against Karta for Joint Family Property Alienation: P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment dated September 19, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirmed a significant legal principle established by the Supreme Court. The court held that a coparcener cannot obtain an injunction to restrain the Karta of a joint Hindu family from alienating the joint family property, even for genuine legal necessity.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Anil Kshetarpal, emphasized the importance of satisfying three essential tests before granting a temporary injunction: prima facie in favor of the plaintiff, balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favor, and the presence of irreparable loss and injury if the injunction is not granted.

Citing a precedent from the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Parkash (1988), the judgment stated, “In a suit for permanent injunction under section 38 of the Specific Relief Act by a coparcener against the father or Manager of the Joint Hindu family property, an injunction cannot be granted as the coparcener has got equally efficacious remedy to get the sale set aside and recover possession of the property.”

The ruling also highlighted that the doctrine of lis pendens applies in such cases. This means that the coparcener, who wishes to challenge the alienation of the property, can do so through a separate legal suit. Furthermore, the judgment noted that the defendant No.1 disputed the plaintiff’s biological relationship, making it inappropriate to restrain him from alienating the property.

As a result of these considerations, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, reinforcing the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court. This judgment underscores the significance of adhering to established legal principles and provides clarity on the rights of coparceners in joint family property disputes.

Date of Decision: September 19, 2023

Vishal vs Raj Kumar and others

Latest Legal News