Perpetual injunction against proposed coparcenary alienation is barred when an effective remedy exists after unlawful sale.

A coparcener cannot obtain a perpetual injunction to stop the karta of a joint Hindu family from alienating coparcenary property. The text states that the manager may alienate such property for legal necessity, benefit of the estate, or antecedent debt, and that an unlawful alienation should be challenged after it is made rather than restrained in advance. Sections 38 and 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bar injunction relief where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, and a suit of this kind would also require issues of title and property character to be decided in an unsuitable proceeding.

---

---

Issues: Whether a coparcener can maintain a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the karta of a joint Hindu family from alienating coparcenary property.

Analysis: The joint family manager has power to alienate coparcenary property for legal necessity, benefit of the estate, or antecedent debt. A coparcener's remedy is to impeach an unlawful alienation after it is made, not to obtain a blanket restraint on proposed alienation. Under Sections 38 and 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a perpetual injunction is barred where an efficacious alternative remedy exists. A suit for injunction of this nature would also obstruct bona fide sales made for genuine necessity and would require determination of title and character of property in a proceeding not suited for that purpose.

Conclusion: Such a suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable, and the coparcener is not entitled to restrain the karta from alienating the joint family property.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a coparcener has an efficacious remedy to challenge an unlawful alienation after completion, Sections 38 and 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bar a perpetual injunction restraining a karta from merely proposing to alienate coparcenary property.

---