1988 (1) TMI 360 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a suit for permanent injunction by coparceners against the Karta of a joint Hindu family.
2. Legal necessity and benefit of the estate in alienation of joint Hindu family property.
3. Remedies available to coparceners against alienation of joint family property by the Karta.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of a Suit for Permanent Injunction by Coparceners Against the Karta:
The primary issue in this case is whether a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Karta of a joint Hindu family from alienating the property is maintainable. The Supreme Court held that such a suit is not maintainable. It was emphasized that in a Joint Hindu Mitakshara Family, a son acquires an interest in ancestral property by birth, and the father, as the Karta, has the authority to alienate joint family property for legal necessity, the benefit of the estate, or to meet antecedent debts. The Court referenced Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, which bars the grant of an injunction when there is an equally efficacious remedy available. The Court concluded that a coparcener has the remedy to challenge and set aside an alienation after it has occurred, rather than preventing it beforehand through an injunction.

2. Legal Necessity and Benefit of the Estate in Alienation of Joint Hindu Family Property:
The Court reiterated the well-established principle that the Karta of a joint Hindu family can alienate property for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. The Karta's power to alienate property is analogous to that of a Manager for an infant heir, as observed in *Hunoomanpersaud Panday v. Mussumat Babcoee Munraj Koonweree*. The Court noted that if the alienation is made for genuine legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate, it binds the interests of all coparceners, both adult and minor. The Court emphasized that a bona fide lender is not affected by the precedent mismanagement of the estate, provided they inquire into the necessity of the loan and act honestly.

3. Remedies Available to Coparceners Against Alienation of Joint Family Property by the Karta:
The Court highlighted that the remedy available to coparceners is to challenge the alienation and seek to set it aside after it has been completed, rather than preventing it through an injunction. The Court referenced the decision in *Jujhar Singh v. Giani Talok Singh*, which held that a coparcener has no right to maintain a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Karta from alienating coparcenary property. The Court affirmed that the coparcener's right is to challenge the alienation and recover the property after the alienation has come into being. The Court observed that allowing such suits for injunction would lead to unnecessary litigation and could frustrate genuine legal necessities or benefits of the estate.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment and decree of the High Court, which held that the suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable. The Court emphasized that the coparceners have an adequate remedy to challenge and set aside the alienation after it has occurred, and that a suit for injunction to prevent the Karta from alienating the property is not permissible under the law. The Court also clarified that in cases of waste or ouster, an injunction may be granted, but a blanket injunction restraining the Karta from alienating the property even in cases of legal necessity cannot be granted.