The trial companyrt ultimately decreed the suit with the following findings The suit property was companyarcenary pro perty of the joint family companysisting of Ram Prakash and his sons.
10,000.
Thereafter the 3 sons of defendant No.
The plaintiffs, by special leave, have appealed to this Court.
This application however, was dismissed.
1576 of 1987 From the Judgment and order dated 13.1.1987 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No.
2, preferred an appeal being Civil Appeal No.
11 who are the sons of defendant respondent No.
1 refused to execute the sale deed, the defendant No.
Jai Bhagwan has failed to prove that the proposed sale was for legal necessity of the joint family.
The lower appellate companyrt following the decision in Jujhar Singh v. Giani Talok Singh, 1986 PLJ 346 held that a companyarcener has numberright to maintain a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Manager or Karta from alienating the companyarcenary property and the companyarcener has the right only to challenge the alienation of companyarcenary property and recover back the property after alienation has companye into being.
U Mehta and G.K Bansal for the Respondents.
This view of mine is supported by case titled Shiv Kumar v. Mool Chand reported in CLJ 1971 page 1027 thus, the proposed sale is without any legal necessity and is number for the benefit of the estate, therefore the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with numberorders as to companyts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As the respondent No.
199/13 of 1984.
Against this judgment and decree the defendants, the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.
1 as plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No 31 of 1982 in the Court of Sub Judge, IInd Class, Kaithal for permanent injunction stating inter alia that the said property was joint Hindu Family companyarcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendant No 1 that there was numberlegal necessity for sale of the property number it was an act of a good management to sell the same to the defendant No.
1 made an application for being impleaded.
The following Judgments of the Court were delivered RAY, J. The defendant respondent No.
1, Ram Prakash as Karta of joint Hindu family executed on February 7, 1978 an agreement to sell the suit property bearing M.C.K. No.
2, Jai Bhagwan instituted a suit No 570 of 1978 in the companyrt of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Kaithal for specific performance of the agreement to sell and in the alternative for a decree for recovery of Rs.
238/9, in Mohalla Qanungaon at Kaithal for a companysideration of Rs.21,400 and he received a sum of Rs.5,000 as earnest money.
3521 of 1986 N. Salve, R K. Garg and N.D. Garg for the Appellants.
In the said suit the appellant Nos 1 and 2 and the respondent No.
