Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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