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