The Bombay High Court reaffirms that coparceners cannot restrain the Karta from alienating joint family property unless the lack of legal necessity or benefit to the estate is established. The decision upholds established precedent and is binding on subordinate courts in Maharashtra. Particularly relevant for property disputes involving joint Hindu family property and banking recovery proceedings.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/6850/2023 of SRIRANJAN ANIL LAMBE Vs THE GUJRATHI URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS |
| CNR | HCBM070234502023 |
| Date of Registration | 08-06-2023 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Rejected |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms prior Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Hindu Personal Law, Civil Procedure, Property Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a coparcener can obtain an injunction to restrain the Karta from sale of joint family property mortgaged allegedly without legal necessity. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Karta (Manager) of a joint Hindu family possesses the power to alienate, mortgage, or create third-party interests in joint family property if such transaction is for the benefit of the family or arises out of legal necessity. A coparcener does not have a right to restrain the Karta by injunction merely by alleging absence of legal necessity, especially at the interim stage, unless there is sufficient material. The preferred remedy for a coparcener is to challenge the transaction if and when it is shown to not be for legal necessity. The right to seek partition remains unaffected, but injunctive relief will be refused unless clear prima facie case is made out. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Mitakshara law of coparcenary, powers of Karta, Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedents regarding management and alienation of joint family property. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Suit property is described as ancestral property; the father and brother of the petitioner mortgaged it to the respondent Bank, securing a loan which was not repaid. Petitioner asserts the loan was not for legal necessity and seeks partition as well as injunction to prevent sale. Trial Court granted injunction, but the District Judge set it aside, prompting present writ petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India and potentially the Supreme Court when considering the powers of the Karta |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that the Karta’s power to mortgage or sell joint family property cannot be restrained at the interim stage solely on the coparcener’s bare allegation of absence of legal necessity.
- Any challenge to alienation must be substantiated with evidence that the transaction was not for the benefit of the family or for legal necessity.
- Coparceners’ right is to claim their share in the property upon partition, not to injunct the Karta from management actions absent cogent prima facie evidence.
- Lawyers representing banks in recovery actions against joint family property can rely on this as binding precedent to oppose injunctions by coparceners.
- If coparceners wish to challenge a mortgage or sale, their remedy lies in substantive challenge to the transaction, not by seeking interim restraints.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court confirmed that under Hindu law, the Karta (typically the father or family manager) may alienate, mortgage or otherwise deal with joint family property, provided such alienation is for legal necessity or the benefit of the estate.
- The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar vs. Ram Prakash (1988) 2 SCC 77 was relied upon: sons/coparceners have birthright, but the father as Karta is entitled to alienate joint family property in certain circumstances.
- Bombay High Court’s own prior decision in Ramesh Damodhar Deshmukh v. Damodhar Domaji Deshmukh (1999) 1 Mh.L.J. 153 clarified that a coparcener cannot seek injunction against the Karta’s acts of management; rather, their remedy is to demand partition or challenge the validity of the transaction in substantive proceedings.
- In the present case, the plea that the loan was not for legal necessity was not substantiated in the plaint, and there was no material to show misappropriation or misuse.
- Since the mortgage was executed by the petitioner’s father and brother, and no partition had occurred, the Bank cannot be prevented from proceeding under the MCS Act for loan recovery.
- The appellate order vacating the injunction was found proper, and the writ petition stood rejected accordingly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The suit property is joint family property and the petitioner has a birthright in it.
- The loan obtained was not for legal necessity as required under Hindu law.
- The Trial Court correctly granted a temporary injunction to prevent the sale or disposal of the property pending partition.
Respondent (Bank):
- The petitioner’s suit is collusive and intended solely to derail recovery proceedings by the Bank.
- Mortgage of the property and loan availed by the petitioner’s father and brother are undisputed — all family members were aware of the transaction.
- Appellate Court rightly vacated the injunction that was incorrectly granted by the Trial Court.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a civil suit for partition and separate possession of an ancestral property, alleging that the property was mortgaged to the respondent Bank by the petitioner’s father and brother for a loan which was not for legal necessity. Upon default, the Bank initiated proceedings and attached the property. The petitioner sought a temporary injunction against the creation of third-party interests pending the suit, which was initially granted by the Trial Court, but later set aside by the District Judge in appeal, leading to the present writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referred to principles under Hindu law (Mitakshara school) recognizing the Karta’s (manager’s) power to alienate joint family property provided the transaction is for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family.
- Relief was sought under civil procedure pertaining to temporary injunctions in property matters. There is also reference to the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, specifically regarding the Bank’s right to proceed under Rule 107 for recovery.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The decision follows and affirms existing Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedent on the powers of the Karta and the limitations on injunction relief by coparceners.