The main legal point established in the judgment is that a female member of a joint Hindu family is not a coparcener and, therefore, cannot maintain a suit for partition. Additionally, even if she were a coparcener, she is not entitled to an order of injunction against the Karta.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the defendant petitioner has called in question the legal validity of the order dated 29-3-2000 passed by the learned third Additional District Judge, Satna in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 48/99 whereby the learned appellate Judge passed the order of status quo in respect of immovable and movable properties belonging to the petitioner whereas the Court of first instance had passed an order of restraint restraining the petitioner from alienating the immovable property.

2. The facts as have been portrayed are that the non-applicant as plaintiff initiated a civil action being C.S. No. 54-A/99 in the Court of 4th Civil Judge, Class II, Satna for partition and declaration that she is entitled to half share in the joint Hindu family property. Alongwith the suit the non-applicant filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for seeking an injunction restraining the applicant from selling or alienating the immovable and movable properties. In the said application it was pleaded that the plaintiff is the married wife of the applicant and the marriage had taken place 50 to 55 years back. It was set forth that, the applicant was the Karta of the family and has two houses in his name. It was also pleaded that he also owns two buses and has got certain fixed deposits in the Bank. It was also alleged that the applicant has married for the second time and has driven out the non-applicant from the house on 5-3-99.

3. The applicant entered contest and filed his objection contending, inter alia, that the plaintiff is not his married wife but has been his mistress and at the time of partition of India she had accompanied her. It was further put forth that the property in respect of which injunction is sought is the self acquired property and the non-applicant has no right. It was also highlighted that the plaintiff/non-applicant had left the house of the defendant/petitioner and gone to live with her brother's son and while going she had taken her ornaments, movables and had also encashed the fixed deposits which were made by the defendant in her name. It was further pleaded that she has opened a shop with the help of her brother's son and doing business. It was also put forth that the plaintiff/non-applicant is not a member of the joint Hindu family and hence, the claim for partition at her instance is not maintainable.

4. That the parties filed number of documents before the Court of first instance. The learned Trial Judge by order dated 24-9-99 restrained the defendant applicant from alienating the immovable properties. However, no injunction was granted in respect of the two buses and other movable proper ties.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the defendant/petitioner preferred M.C.A. No. 48/99 and the non-applicant/plaintiff preferred an appeal which was registered as M.C. A. No. 45/99. Both the appeals were heard by the learned Additional District Judge and a common order was passed on 29-3-2000 whereby learned Appellate Judge directed status quo to be maintained with regard to the suit property. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present revisionist.

6. Assailing the aforesaid orders it is contended by Mr. Kohli that the non-applicant being not a coparcener could not have sued for partition and, therefore, no prima facie case is made out which is the basic requirement for grant of injunction. It is also his submission that the learned Appellate Judge has erroneously held that the petitioner cannot work contrary to the interest of the joint family being the Karta though the defendant applicant had not admitted to be the Karta of the family. It is also urged by him that even assuming for the sake of argument that the defendant petitioner is the Karta of the joint family, he cannot be restrained from alienating the property at the