BEDO Vs. SARDARA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner here claims to be the wife of the pre-deceased son of respondent Sardara and on that basis seeks one-third share in the property in suit, or in the alternative maintenance from her father-in-law. During the pendency of the suit, a temporary injunction was prayed for to restrain the respondents from alienating the property in suit. An injunction to this effect was granted by the trial Court but it was set aside by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents seeking to reply upon the judgment of this court in Jujhar Singh Vs. Giani Talok Singh, 1987(1) Punjab Law Reporter 399. , contended that no injunction can be granted to restrain coparcenary property being sold for legal necessity. To the pointed question however, put to him in this behalf, counsel for the respondents submitted that he had no instructions, at the moment whether the respondents have any intention to alienate the property or that any legal necessity to do so exits. This being so, it would clearly be in the interests of justice to grant the plaintiff the temporary injunction prayed for. The respondents are consequently hereby restrained from alienating the property in suit during the pendency of the suit. It is clarified, however, that if any legal necessity arises for the alienation of the property, it shall be open to the respondents to apply to the trial court for permission to sell it to meet such legal necessity. If and when such application is made, the trial court shall decide it in accordance with law. This revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Costs of this petition shall be costs in the suit. Counsel's fee Rs. 300. Order accordingly.