CR No.6519 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6519 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.8.2010 Niranjan Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Smt. Sansar Kaur and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for respondent No.1 Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned orders passed by the Courts below whereby his prayer for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit, has been dismissed. As per the averments, the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 restraining them from alienating the suit property or dispossess the petitioner forcibly therefrom, during the pendency of the suit. In the aforesaid suit, it was averred that respondents No.1 and 2 are the mother and father of the petitioner. Previously respondent No.2 was holding land in Uttar Pradesh which he inherited from his forefathers. After selling the aforesaid property in the year 1982-83, he purchased the suit property from the aforesaid sale proceeds in his own name and in the name of respondent No.1 and thus, the plaintiff-petitioner along with respondents No.3 to 5 have coparcenary rights in the aforesaid property being the ancestral joint Hindu Family property. It was further averred that respondent No.2 sold a part of CR No.6519 of 2009 2 land out of Khasra No.687 on 5.1.1987 due to which a dispute arose between the parties, which was settled with the intervention of the respectables, whereby respondent No.2 gave 3 kanals of land to the petitioner in village Paddi Matwali and delivered possession also. Similarly, respondent No.1 gave a plot i.e a part of Khasra No.687, shown in red in the site plan to the petitioner for making separate residence. This family settlement was later on reduced into writing. Since then the parties are in possession of their respective shares. Now defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 are threatening to alienate the suit land and dispossess the petitioner from the suit property illegally and forcibly. Hence, the necessity arose to file the present suit. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their written statement and reply to the injunction application stating therein that the petitioner and respondents No.3 to 5 have got no right, interest and concern with the suit property. The family settlement dated 16.9.1990 has already been rejected by the Civil Court in a suit titled as Mohan Singh v. Bhajan Singh etc. disbelieving the execution of family settlement. It was further denied that property in Uttar Pradesh was coparcenary property. It was stated that suit property was exclusive/self acquired property of defendant-respondents No.1 and 2, who were in exclusive possession of the same. Remaining averments made in the plaint were denied and prayer was made to dismiss the suit as well as stay application. The trial Court while dismissing the application for grant of ad interim injunction held that the question raised regarding the ancestral nature of the property and the execution of family settlement can be decided only after taking evidence and the plaintiff-petitioner has got no prima facie case in his favour. CR No.6519 of 2009 3 The appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the trial Court was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Nawanshahar vide impugned order dated 13.10.2009. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed as under:- “I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. As per jamabandi of year 2000-2001, no share of plaintiff remains in Khasra No.7//17/3, 18/2. As per record, Naranjan Singh had sold his entire share to Smt. Darshan Kaur wife of Rattan Chand and Mohan Singh had also sold his share to Smt. Darshan Kaur. In this regard, Mutation No.2543 has already been sanctioned. The family settlement has been denied by the respondents and more over; this family settlement has already been discarded earlier by the Civil Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record electricity bills to prove his possession over the residential house. However, even the electricity bills are not in the name of the appellant but rather these are in the name of Dilbagh Singh. Even in the jamabandi for the year 2001-2002, the name of the appellant is not mentioned as owner in possession of the Khasra No.687. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the appellant for temporary injunction.” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused CR No.6519 of 2009 4 the impugned orders. As per the revenue record, which has been placed on record of the case, the name of the petitioner is not found entered in the revenue record and the alleged family settlement has already been discarded by the Civil Court. The grant of interim injunction is a discretionary relief. Both the Courts below on the basis of the facts established on record have refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner as such no error seems to have been committed while passing of the impugned orders. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Courts below is limited. However, the revision petition is disposed of with the observations that doctrine of lis pendens will apply to the alienation, if any, made, during the pendency of the suit, by the respondents. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within one year from today. The revision petition is disposed of. August 24, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE