IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6917 of 2009 Date of decision: 26-11-2009 Sher Singh Versus Shanti Devi and Another CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Shri J.S.Hooda , Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 12.10.2009 whereby the defendant- petitioner was granted permission to sell 4/5th share and permission for the sale of remaining 1/5th share of the suit land was declined. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 is widow whereas plaintiff No.2 is minor daughter of deceased Ram Kumar son of the defendant. Plaintiffs have sought declaration for possession of 1/5th share of Ram Kumar in the property of Sher Singh who is recorded as owner of the said property as Karta of Joint Hindu Family property. On the application for grant of interim injunction, the defendant-petitioner has given statement that he will not sell the property without permission of the court. In view of the said statement of the defendant-petitioner, the application was decided in the manner indicated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as a Karta of Hindu Undivided Family, the petitioner cannot be restrained from alienating the joint property. Any coparcener has a right to challenge alienation, if effected by Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. Therefore, the defendant-petitioner cannot be restrained from selling 1/5th share of the property of which admittedly the defendant is a Karta. There is no dispute with the proposition that suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable against the Karta to restrain him from selling any share of the joint property but in the present case son of the petitioner has died and his widow and daughter have sought declaration of their share in the property. Therefore, it is not simpliciter suit for injunction but suit for possession of the share of Ram Kumar son of the deceased. In view of the above fact, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in not granting permission to the defendant to sell the property to the extent of 1/5th share of Ram Kumar in respect of which the plaintiffs have sought the declaration. Therefore, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE November 26, 2009 RSK