Unexplained Possession Of Stolen Ornaments Soon After Murder Attracts Presumption Of Guilt Under Section 114 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Identical Pay Scale Cannot Be Basis To Confer Benefits Meant Specifically For Scientists: Gauhati High Court Suit For Partition Not Maintainable Without Seeking Cancellation Of Registered Partition Deed Signed By Plaintiff: Karnataka High Court Law Officers Have No Vested Right To Complete 3-Year Tenure, State Can Terminate Services Early: Orissa High Court Carpenter With Amputated Leg Suffers 100% Functional Disability As Trade Requires Squatting & Sitting Position: Supreme Court Fatal Fall Into Dry Canal During Scuffle Attracts Section 304 Part II IPC: Supreme Court Reduces Sentence To Period Undergone Minor Rape Victim Permitted To Terminate 28-Week Pregnancy: Delhi High Court Cites Right To Bodily Autonomy Under Article 21 Investigation Initiated Without FIR Registration Illegal; Prosecution Documents Prepared After Trap Proceedings 'Table Investigation': Andhra Pradesh High Court Successive Writ Petitions On Same Cause Of Action Barred By Constructive Res Judicata: Bombay High Court Dismisses BPCL's Challenge To Octroi Levy Court Fees Must Be Refunded If Commercial Suit Is Rejected For Non-Compliance With Pre-Institution Mediation: Calcutta High Court Deduction Under Section 80-I Must Be Computed On Profits And Gains Without Reducing Investment Deposit Claim Under Section 32AB: Gujarat High Court Employee’s Right To Appeal Not Lost If Disciplinary Action Initiated By Higher Authority Provided Further Appeal Lies To Superior Body: Kerala High Court Preceding 10-Year Period For Charge Sheets Mandatory To Invoke 'Organized Crime' Under Section 111 BNS: J&K High Court Grants Bail PIL Petitioners Doubted By Court Must Annex Previous Adverse Orders In Future Filings: Kerala High Court Shifting Drug Traffickers To Distant States Necessary To Disrupt Supply Chains: Calcutta High Court Upholds PITNDPS Detention

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