CR No. 8380 of 2010. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No. 8380 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 22.12.2010 Digamber Singh and others ....Petitioners. Vs. Sher Singh and others. ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA ****** Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) CM No. 32578-CII of 2010. Application is allowed as prayed for. CR No. 8380 of 2010 The decree holders are in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned Executing Court on 20.10.2010, whereby an application filed by the Decree Holders under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC was dismissed. The petitioners-decree holders have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property, the same being the Hindu undivided family property. The said suit was decreed on 24.09.1984. The said decree was affirmed in appeal as well. Since, Sher Singh, respondent no.1, executed two sale CR No. 8380 of 2010. 2 deeds on 07.07.2008 in favour of one Sulochana, therefore, the respondents were alleged to have violated the decree for injunction granted by the Civil Court in an application under Order 21 Rule 32 of CPC. While considering the said application, the Court found that the petitioners have not proved that sale is without any legal necessity, therefore, dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners have already filed a civil suit challenging alienation by way of sale deeds dated 07.07.2008 and that the findings recorded in the execution application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC could not have been recorded as such findings were not necessary for deciding an application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. In Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Parkash , AIR1988 SC 576, it has been held that there cannot be any injunction against alienation of a Hindu undivided family property. In fact, defendant can be restrained from alienating the suit property during the pendency of a suit, but there cannot be any permanent injunction in respect of alienation of the suit property. Such injunction is a clog on the rights of owner to use the property in the best possible manner. Therefore, a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property in perpetuity was in fact, without jurisdiction. Therefore, the learned Executing Court was right in declining the application filed by the petitioners under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC. However, the finding that petitioners have not proved the CR No. 8380 of 2010. 3 sale was without legal necessity, is not necessarily required to be recorded by the learned Executing Court. Therefore, such finding shall not be taken into consideration in any other proceedings between the parties. With the said observation, the present revision petition stands disposed of. (HEMANT GUPTA) 22.12.2010 JUDGE aj