Sushil Kumar v. Ram Prakash (1988) 2 SCC 77
Supreme Court of India 1988 Bench: SC Citation: (1988) 2 SCC 77 Area: Specific Relief, Hindu Joint Family Read: ~5 min
Gulzar Hashmi
India
31 Oct 2025
sushil-kumar-v-ram-prakash-1988-2-scc-77
CASE_TITLE: Sushil Kumar v. Ram Prakash (1988) 2 SCC 77
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: injunction against Karta, Specific Relief Act s.38 & s.41, self-acquired vs ancestral
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: coparcenary, legal necessity, benefit of estate, permanent injunction
PUBLISH_DATE: 31-10-2025
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India
Quick Summary
- Core First decide: is the house self-acquired or ancestral/coparcenary?
- Rule Perpetual injunction (SRA Section 38) can be refused under Section 41, especially against a Karta.
- Holding No blanket stop order on a Karta. Better remedy: challenge a specific sale if it happens.
Issues
- Is the suit property self-acquired of the father or ancestral/coparcenary?
- Should a court grant a permanent injunction to restrain the father/Karta from selling?
Rules
- Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 38 (Perpetual Injunction)
- Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 41 (When Injunction is Refused)
Facts — Timeline
Feb 1978: Ram Prakash agrees to sell a house to Jai Bhagwan for ₹21,400. Agreement says the house is his self-acquired property.
Earnest money: ₹5,000 paid by Jai Bhagwan; balance to be paid at sale deed execution.
Breach: Ram Prakash does not execute the sale deed despite demand.
Suit 1: Jai Bhagwan files for specific performance. Ram Prakash’s sons (Rakesh Kumar & brothers) seek to be impleaded; court refuses—calls them unnecessary parties.
Suit 2: The sons file a new suit for permanent injunction to restrain their father from alienating to Jai Bhagwan or anyone else, claiming the house is coparcenary and the sale is not for legal necessity or benefit of estate.
Arguments
Appellants (Sons)
- House is coparcenary; father is only the Karta.
- Proposed alienation is not for legal necessity or benefit of estate.
- Seek a permanent injunction restraining any sale.
Respondents
- Agreement shows property as self-acquired of Ram Prakash.
- Sons were rightly not parties to the specific performance suit.
- Blanket injunction against a Karta is improper under SRA s.41.
Judgment
- No blanket injunction against a Karta restraining alienation.
- Equally efficacious remedy exists: challenge or set aside the sale if made.
- Karta’s powers are recognized; he judges legal necessity and benefit of estate at the relevant time.
- The sons’ apprehension was vague; no specific imminent sale was shown.
Ratio Decidendi
Courts should not issue a broad restraint on a Karta’s power to alienate. Under the Specific Relief Act, injunction is refused when another effective remedy exists and when the threat is not concrete. The nature of the property (self-acquired vs ancestral) must be settled first.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies limits on injunctions against a Karta.
- Reinforces the need to show a specific and imminent transaction.
- Guides exam answers on SRA s.38 & s.41 with joint family property disputes.
Key Takeaways
Decide self-acquired vs ancestral first.
No blanket injunction against a Karta.
Prefer post-sale challenge if needed.
Show specific threat, not vague fear.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: N-E-V — Nature → Efficacious remedy → Vague fear ≠ injunction.
- Nature of property first.
- Efficacious remedy over blanket restraint.
- Vague apprehension won’t do.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-acquired vs ancestral; whether permanent injunction can restrain Karta’s sale. | SRA s.38 (Perpetual Injunction), s.41 (Refusal of Injunction). | No concrete sale shown; Karta must judge necessity/benefit; sale can be challenged later. | No blanket injunction; first settle nature of property; rely on alternative remedies. |
Glossary
- Karta
- Manager of a Hindu joint family who may alienate property for necessity or benefit.
- Perpetual Injunction
- Final order stopping an act permanently under SRA s.38.
- Section 41 SRA
- Lists situations where courts must refuse injunction.
- Coparcenary
- Joint ownership by members who acquire interest by birth.
FAQs
No. A broad, advance restraint is improper. Show a specific sale lacking necessity/benefit, then challenge that transaction.
Then sons as coparceners cannot claim a birthright. The father’s power to sell is wider for self-acquired property.
Because if a sale happens, the law lets you set it aside. That later remedy can be better than stopping every possible future sale.
Show a specific and imminent alienation that lacks legal necessity or benefit of estate, with clear facts.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now