Sunil Kumar vs Ram Prakash case held that a coparcener does not have the right to get a permanent injunction against the Karta to prevent him from alienating joint family property.
- Ram Prakash signed into an arrangement with Jai Bhagwan to sell a dwelling property that was represented as a self-acquired property of Ram Prakash. On the day of the agreement, Jai Bhagwan paid Rs.5000 as earnest money and pledged to pay the rest on the date of the sale deed’s execution.
- Ram Prakash did not carry out the deal. Jai Bhagwan sued, seeking particular execution of the contract. The sons of Ram Prakash requested to be impleader as parties in that matter to contest the suit for a particular performance, but the court refused.
- Thereupon, they instituted a suit for a permanent injunction against their father, restraining him from alienating the property to Jai Bhagwan or anybody else, because the said house was their coparcenary property and the proposed sale was neither for legal necessity nor for the benefit of the joint family estate.
- Whether a Karta can sell the joint family property even though the coparceners are against it?
- Whether there can be an injunction against the Karta for stopping the alienation from the joint family property.
- Plaintiff’s contention
The property in question was a Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property owned jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant, and there was no legal requirement for its sale, nor was it an act of good management to sell it without the plaintiffs’ approval.
- Defendant’s contention
Because of his paternal relationship and position as the family’s head, the father has the authority to alienate joint family property in order 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.
- RATIO DECIDENDI:
- Bench: Ray, B.C. (J)
- At the request of the coparcener, they may obtain an injunction against the Manager of the joint Hindu family in the event of waste or expulsion.
- A permanent order against the alienation of the joint Hindu family’s property, even with legal necessity, cannot be issued.
- The managing member, also known as the Karta, has the authority to administer as well as alienate joint family property. The alienation might be for personal reasons or for the benefit of the estate.
- This type of alienation would bind the interests of all undivided family members, whether adults or kids, although this authority is not absolute. When alienation is challenged as being unreasonable or unlawful, the alienee must show that there was a legal requirement in actuality or that he undertook a proper and bona fide inquiry into the matter.
- It would be up to the alienee to show that he did everything he could to satisfy himself that such a requirement existed. The alienation would be deemed void if they proved it to be unwarranted.
- Only the Manager’s share may be sold to the buyer. In some areas, though, the buyer would not receive even that much. It would nullify the estrangement as a whole.
- The Karta should consider the actual burden on the joint family estate. It would be his responsibility to foresee the risk and prevent it.
- The court held that a coparcener does not have the right to get a permanent injunction against the Karta to prevent him from alienating joint family property since he has the option of contesting it.
- The coparcener has a sufficient remedy to challenge Karta’s alienation. As a result, he cannot seek an injunction preventing the Karta from alienating the coparcenary property in court under the Specific Relief Act.
Found Sunil Kumar vs Ram Prakash Case summary useful? We have a bunch of useful topics from family law that will help you in your preparation here >>> FAMILY LAW
Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT