Agreement to sell -- Karta of Hindu Joint Family - Legal necessity - Karta entered into an agreement to sell who was in need of funds to meet the domestic necessities - A coparcener cannot seek injunction against Karta restraining him from dealing with or entering into a transaction of sale of Joint Hindu Family Property, albeit post alienation has right to challenge the..........
Agreement to sell -- Karta of Hindu Joint Family - Legal necessity - Karta entered into an agreement to sell who was in need of funds to meet the domestic necessities - Legal necessity is unpredictable and depends upon facts of each case...........
Hindu Joint Family Property -- Alienation by Karta - Where a Karta has alienated Joint Hindu Family Property for value either for legal necessity or for benefit of estate it would bind the interest of all undivided members of the family even when they are minors or widows...........
Joint Hindu Family property -- Alienation by Karta - Injunction - Karta has right to sell property for legal necessity - Co-parcenars have no right to seek injunction on alienation...........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1, 2 -- Temporary injunction - Suit by wife for creating charge for maintenance claim - Wife seeking temporary injunction from alienating, transferring and creating charge over suit property - Property in question is ancestral property as per plaintiff - Wife is living separately since 1998 - She herself pleaded that husband being..........
Hindu Law -- Ancestral property - Alienation by Karta for legal necessity - Partition suit - Karta/manger of Hindu Joint family has a right to alienate joint property for legal necessity - If a member of joint family challenges alienation by Karta, he has to plead and prove that alienation is not for legal necessity - Unless he seeks to set aside those sale deeds, relief..........
Mitakshara Law -- Co-parcenary property - Alienation by Karta - Factum of sale deeds in question executed without any consideration, would itself show that suit property was sold without any legal necessity...........
Mitakshara Law -- Co-parcenary property - Alienation by Karta without legal necessity - Suit for declaration by plaintiff - Locus standi - Plaintiff being son of Karta a male coparcener in suit property, was vitally affected by purported sale of suit property by his father - He therefore, had locus to file suit for a declaration that suit property being co-parcenary..........
Mitakshara Law -- Co-parcenary property - Alienation by Karta without legal necessity - Onus was on alienee/respondent to prove that there was a legal necessity or benefit to estate or she had made bonafide enquiries - Respondent completely failed to discharge said burden - More so, sale deeds were without any consideration - Sale deeds in favour of respondents set aside -..........
Hindu Law -- Ancestral property - Alienation by Karta - Legal necessity - Plaintiff could not have been asked to place any negative evidence on record to show that, there was no legal necessity - Parties are required to adduce positive evidence - Statement on oath by plaintiff that defendant had no legal necessity to sell lands was therefore, sufficient to hold it..........
