Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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