CR No. 2526 of 2006 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No. 2526 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 11.8.2009
Chandan Singh
.......... Petitioner
Versus
Sumitra Devi
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 7.4.2006, passed by the learned
Addl. District Judge, Sonepat, allowing an application moved by the
respondent / plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
The plaintiff / respondent filed a suit by claiming that the suit
property was coparcenary property in the hands of the petitioner, and that
she being widow of the son of defendant had interest in it. The plaintiff
claimed 1/8th share in the suit property. It was further pleaded, that the
petitioner herein was manager/Karta of the family, therefore, had no right to
alienate the coparcenary / joint Hindu property without legal necessity.
The suit was contested, wherein it was pleaded that the
petitioner was absolute owner of the suit property, and further that he was
CR No. 2526 of 2006 2
manager/Karta of the joint Hindu family property. The petitioner further
asserted his right of alienation by placing reliance on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Raghunath Dass Vs. Ranbir Kumar and Ors. 1992(1)
Revenue Law Reporter 147 and Sunil Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ram Prakash &
Ors. 1989 (2) All India Land Laws Report 584.
The learned trial Court held, that the plaintiff had no prima
facie case, and dismissed the application for temporary injunction.
In appeal, the learned Addl. District Judge reversed the finding
by holding that the widow becomes absolute owner of the suit property
which comes to her share being the last female holder of the family
property. It was further held that the petitioner was not entitled to sell her
share of land even if he was held to be the manager of the property.
The findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court are
not sustainable in law. The daughter in law cannot claim to be coparcener in
ancestral property, so as to seek injunction against sale by the Karta of the
family. Even a coparcener is not entitled to seek injunction against Karta, as
his remedy is to challenge alienation, after the sale. Therefore, even if for
the sake of arguments, she is taken to be coparcener still she has no right to
seek injunction against sale.
The revision is allowed, the order passed by the learned lower
appellate Court is set aside, and that of the learned trial Court is restored but
with no order as to costs.
11.8.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE