C. R. No. 3079 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 3079 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 11, 2010 Lachhman Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Phulla alias Phullu .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Lachhman Singh has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 25.09.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and judgment dated 23.04.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, thereby declining to grant temporary injunction to the plaintiff- petitioner. Plaintiff has filed suit against his father Phulla @ Phullu – defendant-respondent seeking declaration that plaintiff is owner in possession of the land to the extent of half share and to the extent of C. R. No. 3079 of 2010 2 105/1680 share, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, on the basis of family settlement. The plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land and from making any alteration or addition or from changing nature of the suit land and from alienating the same in any manner. The plaintiff moved application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) seeking to restrain the defendant from alienating the suit land in any manner or from changing its existing condition by raising construction or carving out plots or in any other manner till the final decision of the suit. The plaintiff's claim is based on alleged family settlement. The plaintiff claimed that about 20 years back, in a family settlement, the suit land fell to his share and since then, he is owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff also alleged that in another settlement about two months before the filing of the suit, defendant promised to get ownership of the land changed in favour of the plaintiff in the revenue record, but later on, the defendant threatened to alienate the suit land. The defendant controverted the plaintiff's averments and pleaded that defendant is owner in possession of the land in question. Defendant has three sons and four daughters and all of them have right of inheritance to the suit property after the death of the defendant. Alleged family settlement was controverted. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 25.09.2009, C. R. No. 3079 of 2010 3 dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order has been dismissed by the appellate court vide impugned judgment dated 23.04.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff's brothers Karan Singh and Dheer Singh filed suit vide plaint Annexure P-1 against their father i.e. present defendant, who, in written statement filed in that suit, admitted the plea of family settlement, raised by plaintiff's brothers. However, this contention does not help the petitioner in the instant case because no such averment was even made in the plaint of the instant suit so as to afford opportunity to the defendant to respond to the same. In addition to it, the aforesaid admission regarding family settlement with plaintiff's brothers would not depict that there was also any such family settlement with the plaintiff himself. In any event, even if there was any family settlement with the plaintiff, there is no material on record to even remotely depict that the land in question fell to the share of the plaintiff in the alleged family settlement. It would also not be out of place to notice here that the plaintiff has alleged that in the family settlement about 20 years ago, the suit land fell to his share and since then, he is owner in possession thereof. However, there is no entry in revenue record depicting possession of the plaintiff over C. R. No. 3079 of 2010 4 the suit land during the said period of 20 years. If there had been any such family settlement, and if the suit land had been given to the plaintiff in the said family settlement 20 years ago, and if he had been in possession thereof since then, revenue record would have certainly depicted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. However, there is no such revenue entry depicting possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and therefore, this circumstance negatives the plea of the plaintiff. On the other hand, revenue record reveals that defendant is owner in possession of the suit land till filing of the suit and even thereafter. In view of the aforesaid, it becomes manifest that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. He will not suffer irreparable loss and injury if temporary injunction asked for is not granted. Balance of convenience is also against him. Both the courts below have rightly declined temporary injunction to the plaintiff-petitioner. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders of the courts below, so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. May 11, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE