MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6434\/2024 (CPC)<\/p>\n
(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH<\/strong>)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In a landmark decision, the Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that a sole surviving coparcener in a Hindu joint family can treat coparcenary property as his separate property and dispose of it without legal necessity, provided no other coparceners exist at the time. The Court clarified this principle while overturning a Trial Court\u2019s order, which had rejected a plea to restrain respondents from alienating or constructing on a disputed property.<\/p>\n The case involved a dispute over ancestral property owned by a Hindu joint family. The appellants sought an injunction to prevent the respondents from alienating or constructing on the property. The Trial Court dismissed the plea, prompting an appeal to the Karnataka High Court.<\/p>\n Justice H.P. Sandesh, presiding over the case, emphasized the distinction between the rights of a sole surviving coparcener and those of a manager of a joint Hindu family. The manager can alienate joint family property only for legal necessity or family benefit. However, a sole surviving coparcener enjoys broader rights, akin to those of an individual owner, and can sell, mortgage, or gift the property at his discretion.<\/p>\n The High Court noted that this principle is governed by Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However, the rights of the sole surviving coparcener are curtailed when sons or grandsons are born, as they automatically become coparceners with rights over the ancestral property. At this point, the sole surviving coparcener cannot alienate the property without their consent or a valid legal necessity.<\/p>\n The Court referred to the Supreme Court\u2019s judgment in Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad<\/em> (2018), which established that a sole surviving coparcener could dispose of coparcenary property as his own, provided this occurred before the birth of another coparcener. In the present case, the High Court found that the Trial Court had overlooked material evidence regarding the property\u2019s ancestral nature and the appellants’ claims.<\/p>\n The High Court highlighted the need for interim relief to prevent irreparable harm and multiplicity of proceedings. It ruled that the respondents (defendant Nos. 2 to 6) should be restrained from alienating or encumbering the suit property until the final disposal of the case. The decision underscored the importance of safeguarding the property until a comprehensive resolution of the dispute is achieved.<\/p>\n The Karnataka High Court\u2019s ruling partially allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court\u2019s order. It granted a temporary injunction against the respondents, preventing further alienation of the disputed property. This judgment reaffirms the nuanced legal position of a sole surviving coparcener\u2019s rights over coparcenary property and balances those rights with the emergence of new coparceners upon birth. This decision is a significant clarification of the rights and limitations of coparceners under Hindu law and reinforces the principles of fair and equitable treatment in property disputes.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" MR. PARTH GHORPADE [APPELLANTS] Vs. MR. INDRAJEET D. GHORPADE [RESPONDENTS] MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6434\/2024 (CPC) (CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) In a landmark decision, the Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that a sole surviving coparcener in a Hindu joint family can treat coparcenary property as his separate property and dispose of it without legal […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2730,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2728","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2728","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2728"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2728\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2732,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2728\/revisions\/2732"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2730"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2728"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2728"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2728"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}