C.R. No.2915 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2915 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:17.09.2009 Ashok Kumar .....Petitioner Versus Gurdial Singh and others ...Respondent Present: Mr.Vikas Soni, Advocate for Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Malkit Singh, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The revision is against the order refusing interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court had granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff but the Appellate Court reversed the decision and vacated the order of injunction. The plaintiff, who is aggrieved against the order of the Appellate Court, is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. The revision petitioner is a third party purchaser from one of five brothers and sons of that brother. The vendors of plaintiff appear to have earlier obtained a decree on 07.09.1984 that the father of brother Sh. Mansa Singh was not the owner and it was only the brother and the sons who were the owners of the property. This decree, which was obtained on 07.09.1984 was challenged by means C.R. No.2915 of 2007 (O&M) -2- of a suit filed at the instance of four other brothers for a declaration that the property was ancestral and the decree obtained on 07.09.1984 will not bind them. It appears that the case was finally decided by this Hon'ble Court on 16.08.1999 that the decree obtained by one of the brothers and his sons namely the vendors of the plaintiff was not binding on the other brothers. 3. The purchase of the plaintiff has been secured pendente lite after the institution of the suit by the four brothers against the other brother and his sons. Prima facie, the purchaser, who had purchased the property will obtain only such rights as his vendors were entitled to. A pendente lite purchaser is not entitled to plead bona fides by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The only defence which could avail to such a purchaser would be that the decree obtained itself was a collusive one and the vendors had lawful title to transfer it in favour of the purchaser. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff's prima facie case of possession is established by the revenue entries and the cultivation accounts were in his favour. At the interlocutory stage, it is not merely a prima facie case of possession that would serve the purpose. The plaintiff must also have a strong prima facie case, if his case is based on title. The plaintiff's prima facie case is suspect by the fact that he is a pendente lite purchaser and the vendors have been shown by a previous decree as not the whole owners of the property and four other brothers of the 5th defendant were also the co-owners in relation to the property. These observations that I have made are for consideration of what is relevant only for the purpose of disposal of an C.R. No.2915 of 2007 (O&M) -3- interlocutory application. None of these observations will come in the way of the trial Court to adjudicate relating to the validity of the sale propounded by the plaintiff. 4. The order passed by the Appellate Court reversing the trial Court's order of injunction was, in the circumstances, perfectly justified. There is no error or illegality in the order to be susceptible for an intervention in revision. The revision petition is dismissed. There shall be, however, no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 17, 2009 Pankaj*