C.R. No. 1134 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1134 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 17, 2011 Harbans Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Swaran Singh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Deepali Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff- petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant- respondent to restrain the defendant from alienating, mortgaging, transferring or parting with possession in any manner of any specific portion or khasra number in the land measuring 60 kanals 9 marlas mentioned in the heading of the plaint. The trial Court had ordered the parties to maintain status quo regarding alienation, construction and possession of the property while deciding the application under Order C.R. No. 1134 of 2011 [2] 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The lower Appellate Court has affirmed the finding of the trial Court so far as the status quo regarding the possession and construction is concerned. In the matter of alienation, the lower Appellate Court has observed that the defendant- respondent cannot be restrained from alienating the property to the extent of his share till such time land is partitioned. Counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner has submitted that as per the written statement, the defendant- respondent has admitted that he does not want to alienate his share in the property but the observation of the lower Appellate Court permitting the defendant- appellant to alienate the property to the extent of his share till it is partitioned is beyond pleadings. In view of the admission made by the defendant- respondent, no such relief could be granted. Since the lower Appellate Court has ordered status quo regarding possession and construction and has not passed any restraint order against the defendant- respondent prohibiting him to alienate the property, there does not appear to be any ground to interfere in the impugned order. I have carefully considered the apprehension of counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner that the defendant- respondent is likely to alienate front portion of the property in dispute in specific khasra numbers. The said apprehension appears to be misconceived. The order passed by the lower Appellate Court is clarified that the defendant- respondent will not be entitled to alienate the property beyond the extent of his share and he will not be entitled to transfer the title in specific khasra numbers. C.R. No. 1134 of 2011 [3] With the above clarification, the petition is disposed of. February 17, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE