LexSUSHIL KUMAR & ANR. versus RAM PRAKASH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SUSHIL KUMAR & ANR.
A
1
v.
RAM PRAKASH & ORS.
\
JANUARY 13, 1988
[B.C. RAY AND K. JAGANNATHASHETIY, JJ.]
B
)'
Specific Relief Act, 1963-The right of a coparcener to maintain a
suit for permanent injunction under section 38 of, restraining the mana-
l
ger or Karta of Joint Hindu Family from alienating or selling the joint
Hindu coparcenary property-Whether such suit is maintainable.
-'
Per B.C. Ray, J.
c
-y
The defendant-respondent No. I, Ram Prakash as Karta of a Joint
'
Hindu Family executed an agreement to sell the suit property and
received a sum of Rs.S,000 as earnest money. He, however, refused to
execute the sale deed. The defendant No. 2 Jai Bhagwan, instituted a
D
suit in the Court of the Sub-Judge for specific performance of the agree-
,,.
ment and in tlie alternative for a decree for recovery of Rs.10,000. In
the said suit, the appellants Nos. I and 2 and the respondent No. 11, the
sons of defendant-respondent No. l, made an application for being
impleaded. The application was dismissed. Thereupon, the three sons
of defendant No. I instituted a civil suit in the Court of the Sub-Judge for
E
r
permanent injunction, restraining the defendant No. t from selling or
alienating the property above-said to the defendant No.2 or any other
-
person and restraining the defendant No.2 from proceeding with the
•
suit for specific performance afore-mentioned, as the 'property in ques-
l
tiou was a Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property of the plaintiff
F
l
and the defendant No. l, and there was no legal necessity for sale of the
r
property, nor was it an act of good management to sell the same to the
)
defendant No.2 without the consent of the plaintiffs. The trial Court
held that the house-property in question was the ancestral property of
the Joint Hindu Mitakshara Family and the defendant No. l, the father
of the plaintiffs, was not competent to sell the same except for .a legal
necessity or the benefit of the estate, and that since the plaintiffs' appli-
G
~
cation for impleading them in the suit for specific performance of the
contract of sale had been dismissed and the plaintiffs were coparceners
''1
having interest in the property, the present suit was the only remedy
available to them, and was maintainable in the present form.
Against this judgment and decree, the defendants, the legal rep-
H
623
A
B
c
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] 2 S.C.R.
resentatives of defendant N.o. 2 since deceased, preferred an appeal.
The Appellate Courts held that a coparcener had no right to maintain a
suit for permanent injunction, restraining the manager or Karla from
alienating the coparcenary property and the coparcener had the right
only to challenge the alienation of coparcenary property to recover the
property after the alienation had come into being. The jndgment and
decree of the trial court were set aside. The appellants, i,e. the sons of
the defendant-respondent No. l, appealed to this Court for relief by
special leave against the decision of the High Court.
In this appeal the Court was called upon to decide the only ques-
tion whether the stiit for permanent injunction restraining the Karla of
the joint Hindu famjiy from alienating house property belonging to the
joint Hindu family in pursuance of the agreement to sell executed in
favour of the predecessor .of the appellants, Jai Bhagwan, since
deceased, was maintainable.
It is well-settled that in a Joint-Hindu Mitakshara family, a son
D
acquires hy birth an interest equal to that of the father in the ancestral
property. The father by reason of his paternal relation and his position
as the head of the family is its manager and he is entitled to alienate the
joint family property so as to bind the interests of both the adult and
minor coparceners in the property, provided that the alienation is made
for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate or for meeting an
E
antecedent debt. The power of the Manager of a joint Hindu family
property is analogous to that of a Manager for an infant heir as
observed by the Judicial Committee in Hunoomanpersaud Pandey v.
Mussumat Bobooee Munraj Koonweree-Moore's on Indian Appeal
(i856Vol. Vl)393. [631C-E]
'i
\
1
,· '.----\
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
G
H
Hindu family property, an injunction cannot be granted as the
coparExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.