In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3875 of 2008 Date of decision: May 05, 2009 Partap Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Ram Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the respondent No.1. A.N. Jindal, J An application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff, in a suit for declaration, restraining the respondents-defendants (herein referred as 'the respondents') from withdrawing whole of the compensation deposited in the fixed deposit in Punjab National Bank, Hisar, has been dismissed on 14.6.2008. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed. Briefly, it has been submitted by the plaintiff in his suit that he along with Chander Bhan respondent No.2 are the son of Ram Singh respondent No.1. Ram Singh had two wives namely Mishri Devi and Chander Pati. The petitioner was born out of the womb of Mishri Devi and loins of Ram Singh, whereas, the respondent No.1 is the son of of Chander Pati. Ram Singh along with his three brothers had inherited the property from their father and later on they had partitioned the same. The suit property was ultimately acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority as per rapat roznamcha No.89 dated 20.11.2002, as result of which the respondent received a sum of Rs.8,37,563/- as compensation which was deposited in the Punjab National Bank, Hisar in the shape of an FDR. Now the petitioner is claiming 1/3rd share in the said amount. The claim was contested by the respondent No.1 who while taking certain objections stated that he had already sold some land for the purchase of shop for the petitioner. The sale consideration was paid by the respondent No.1 and the sale deed was executed in the name of the petitioner. Civil Revision No. 3875 of 2008 -2- *** The present suit has been filed by Partap Singh against his father Ram Singh regarding the amount received by him on account of acquisition of the coparcenary and joint Hindu family property. The respondent No.1 being the karta of the family had every right to deal with the money received by him by the acquisition of his land for legal necessity. The defendant appears to have not wasted the money received as compensation on account of the acquisition of joint family property as it is lying deposited in the bank and the defendant No.1 has already made the agreement to purchase the land. In these circumstances, the respondent No.1 would rather suffer an irreparable loss if the defendant No.1, on account of any injunction granted against him would not be able to perform the agreement with regard to purchase of the land with the funds acquired by him. Even otherwise, no suit could be filed by the coparcener against the karta restraining the sale of the property without legal necessity. I find support to my this view from the judgment delivered in case Sunil Kumar and another vs. Ram Parkash and others, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 576, wherein it was observed that the suit for injunction against the karta alienating the suit property is not maintainable. However, he could challenge the sale on the ground that the same was not for legal necessity. At the end, it has been urged that actually Ram Singh has purchased the property in the name of his wife Chander Pati with the funds acquired by him from the joint Hindu family property. With this purchase of the property in the name of Chander Pati, the same will be treated as property acquired by Chander Pati and Chander Pati or Ram Singh may alienate the property further. If it is so done, then the property will loose its ancestral nature. Keeping in view the aforesaid aspect of the case, this petition is partly allowed with the modification that Chander Pati and Ram Singh respondent No.1 would not alienate the property purchased by Ram Singh in the name of Chander Pati vide sale deed 10.11.2008 to any other person in any manner without legal necessity. May 05, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge