SANT SINGH Vs. MATA RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by Sant Singh Plaintiff is directed against the judgment dated 18 2.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar. On a suit filed by the Petitioner, for permanent injunction restraining Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are father and the step mother of the Petitioner, the learned trial Court, vide its order dated 31.10.1986 had restrained the Respondents alienating the property in dispute or entering into any agreement to sell the same. On an appeal filed by the Respondents the same has been partly allowed and the order of the trial Court has been modified to the extent that the Respondents would not alienate the property in question without any legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate.

(2.) The contention of the Petitioner is that by virtue of an agreement executed in September 1985, the Respondents had agreed to receive Rs. 9.000/ - annually from the Petitioner and thus the Petitioner had the exclusive domain over the suit property. The learned Additional District Judge had rightly observed that while staking such a claim the Petitioner himself is divesting himself of his right as a coparcener and is correspondingly not claiming that Respondent is the Karta of the co -parcenary, which own the property in dispute. The said agreement has, therefore, rightly not been taken into consideration while deciding the application for ad interim injunction. The position may emerge to be a different one at the final decision of the suit but I am not concerned with the result at this stage.

(3.) It is the settled law that the Karta of the co -parcenary can alienate its property for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. A coparcener his no right to secure an order of restraint against the Karta from discharging his duties as Karta, in accordance with the law. I am. therefore, of the considered view that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge is unexceptionable.