The sale of HUF property without coparceners' consent is impermissible unless justified by necessity, warranting interim relief to protect their rights.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 - Application for injunction - Plaintiffs sought an injunction regarding the sale of HUF property, which was sold without their consent by the Karta - The court issued notice and granted an interim injunction restraining further alienation of the property pending return of notice. (Paras 1-2)

(B) HUF Property - The sale of HUF property without the consent of coparceners is impermissible unless justified by necessity - The court emphasized the need for balancing equities in granting interim relief. (Paras 3-4)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, as coparceners, challenged the sale of HUF property by the Karta to the opposite party without their consent, arguing that it lacked necessity. The court issued notice and granted an interim injunction restraining further alienation of the property.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the interest of justice would be served by granting an interim injunction to maintain the status quo until the returnable date.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the sale of HUF property without the consent of coparceners was valid and justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sale of HUF property by the Karta without the consent of coparceners is not valid unless there is necessity, reinforcing the principle of protecting the rights of coparceners in HUF property matters.

Result: Interim injunction granted.

ORDER

28.06.2024 Heard Shri A.K. Rai learned counsel for the applicants, who by means of this application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC r/w section 151 has prayed for injunction.

The applicants are the plaintiffs in TS No.280/2024, instituted before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Kamrup (M) along with which Misc. (J) No.517/2024 was filed for injunction and by the impugned order dated 11.06.2024 only notice has been issued.

The connected FAO/53/2024 has been admitted today.

Shri Rai, the learned counsel prays for an order of injunction protecting the rights of the parties. It is submitted that the schedule property is admittedly an HUF property and the same was sold to the opposite party no.4 by the opposite party no.2 on the strength of being a Karta, however, without taking the consent of the applicants who are coparceners. It is also averred that such sale was not due to any necessity of the HUF. Issue notice, returnable on 29.07.2024. Steps for service of notice upon the respondents be taken by usual process.

Steps within 2 days.

Pending return of notice, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served and the equities would be balanced by an order of ad interim injunction.

It is accordingly directed that till the returnable date, the opposite party no. 4 is restrained from alienating the Schedule-B property.

The aforesaid order being an ex parte one, the same would be reconsidered on appearance of the contesting opposite parties.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 518

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATIMR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, JAJAY KUMAR AGARWALLA AND ANR – AppellantVersusM/S JAGDISH PRASAD AGARWALLA AND SONS (HUF) AND 4 ORS – RespondentI.A.(Civil) / 1982 / 2024

The sale of HUF property without coparceners' consent is impermissible unless justified by necessity, warranting interim relief to protect their rights.

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J
AJAY KUMAR AGARWALLA AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
M/S JAGDISH PRASAD AGARWALLA AND SONS (HUF) AND 4 ORS – Respondent
I.A.(Civil) / 1982 / 2024