“7. At the outset it is to be noticed that in a suit for permanent injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act by a coparcener against the father or Manager of the Joint Hindu Family property, an injunction cannot be granted as the coparcener has got equally efficacious remedy to get the sale set aside and recover possession of the property. Sub section (h) of Section 38 of Specific Relief Act bars the grant of such an injunction in the suit. Secondly, the plaintiffrespondents brought this suit for permanent injunction restraining their father, the defendant no.1, from selling or alienating the property to the defendant no.2 or any other person and also restraining the defendant no.2 from proceeding with the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell pending in the civil court. Thus, the relief sought for is to restrain by permanent injunction the Karta of the Joint Hindu Mitakshara Family, i.e. defendant no.1, from selling or alienating the house property in question. The defendant no.1 as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family has undoubtedly, the power to alienate the Joint Family property for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate as well as for meeting antecedents debts. The grant of such a relief will have the effect of preventing the father permanently from selling or transferring the suit property belonging to the Joint Hindu undivided family even if there is a genuine legal necessity for such transfer. If, such a suit for injunction is held maintainable the effect will be that whenever the father as Karta of the Joint Hindu coparcenary property will propose to sell such property owing to a bonafide legal necessity, any coparcener may come up with such a suit for permanent
