Introduction

• The landmark case relates to a suit for injunction restraining Karta of a Joint Hindu Family (JHF) from alienating property.

Facts

• Ram Prakash, the Karta (manager) of a JHF, executed an agreement in 1978 to sell a property belonging to the joint family.
• His sons (the appellants) wanted to be impleaded in the suit for specific performance filed by the buyer (Jai Bhagwan) but were not allowed.
• The sons then filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain their father from selling the property, claiming it was joint family property and the sale was not for legal necessity or benefit of the estate.
• The trial court granted the injunction in favor of the sons, but the High Court reversed it, holding that a coparcener cannot seek an injunction to restrain the Karta from alienating joint family property.
• Hence, an appeal was filed before Supreme Court.

Issues Involved

• Whether a coparcener (son) can maintain a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Karta (father/manager) from alienating joint Hindu family property?
• Whether the High Court was correct in holding that a coparcener has no right to seek such an injunction and can only challenge the alienation after it is completed?

Observation

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment. The key reasons were:

• A blanket injunction restraining the Karta from alienating joint family property, even for legal necessity, cannot be granted. It would prevent the Karta from managing the family affairs.
• A coparcener has a right to claim a share in the joint family property free from unnecessary encumbrances, but not a right to interfere with the Karta's acts of management.
• Under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1930 an injunction cannot be granted when the party can obtain an efficacious relief through other usual modes of proceedings, which the coparcener has by challenging the alienation after it is completed.
• Granting such injunctions would frustrate the Karta's ability to alienate property even for pressing legal necessities or the benefit of the estate, as the suit may take years to be disposed of.

Conclusion

• Therefore, the Supreme Court held that a suit for permanent injunction by a coparcener to restrain the Karta from alienating joint Hindu family property is not maintainable.