Civil Revision No.5661 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5661 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:16.09.2011 Jagtar Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus Baldev Kaur @ Baldev Kaur Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vijay Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, Baldev Kaur @ Baldev Kaur Singh wife of Jagtar Singh-respondent No.1-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit(Annexure P-1) for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining her husband Jagtar Singh and Dalbir Singh @ Balbir Singh son of Kundan Singh-petitioners- defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Sukhjinderjit Singh-respondent No.2-defendant No.3 (for short “the defendants”), from alienating any specific khasra number more than their share, out of joint land and from parting with possession of any specific portion of the suit property, in any manner. She has also filed an application (Annexure P-2) for ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, on the same lines of the pleadings as contained in the plaint. 2. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit and stay application, filed the written statement(Annexure P-5) & reply(Annexure P-6) and prayed for dismissal of the suit and stay application. 3. The trial Court accepted the stay application of the plaintiff, by virtue Civil Revision No.5661 of 2011(O&M) 2 of impugned order dated 04.06.2009(Annexure P-7). 4. Aggrieved by the decision(Annexure P-7) of the trial Court, petitioners-defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned order dated 22.07.2011(Annexure P-9). 5. The petitioner-defendant Nos.1 and 2 still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders(Annexures P-7 and P-9) and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant Nos.1 and 2, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 7. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since defendant Nos.1 and 2 are also owner of the suit land, so, the Courts below committed a mistake in allowing the stay application of the plaintiff, is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. 8. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are husband and wife. They jointly purchased the property in dispute and are in possession of it as a co-sharer. Once, it is proved on record that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are joint owners and in joint possession of the suit land, in that eventuality, neither defendant No.1 has any legal right to alienate any specific khasra number/portion and in excess of his share in the joint property, nor the defendants have any right to disturb the joint possession of the plaintiff, unless the joint property is legally partitioned between the parties. 9. Therefore, to me, the trial Court has rightly accepted the stay application of the plaintiff. Not only that, the first Appellate Court has affirmed the decision of the trial Court, through the medium of impugned order dated 22.07.2011(Annexure P-9), which in substance is as under:- Civil Revision No.5661 of 2011(O&M) 3 “I have considered the arguments advanced before me. I have also gone through the record carefully. In this case, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are husband and wife. The litigation started between them because of their mutual differences. There is no dispute about the fact that the property in dispute is joint between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the same has not been partitioned till date. The plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 himself or through his attorney defendant No.2 from transferring, alienating or disposing of the suit property beyond his share by way of specific khasra numbers. It is further not disputed that both plaintiff and defendant No.1 are residing in Canada and this property has been leased out by them. As per copy of jamabandi for the year 1987-88, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are shown as co- owners and there is entry of khudkashat in the column of cultivation. There is photostat copy of agreement of lease dated 14.3.2008 executed between Jagtar Singh and Sukhwinderjit Singh, according to which 14 acres of land has been given on lease for a period of 10 years i.e. upto May, 2018. There is no doubt about it that in case the appellant/defendant No.1 succeeds in selling specific khasra numbers, which are more valuable without getting it partitioned, the respondent/plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury. No doubt, the appellant/defendant No.1 being owner can sell his share in joint khata to the extent of his share. Therefore, till suit is disposed off on merits, it will be proper to perverse the subject matter of the case in dispute. Therefore, the lower court has rightly passed the order dated 4.6.2009 restraining defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property more than his share or any specific khasra number till its partition and the defendant No.3 is also rightly restrained from parting with specific portion of the suit land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 during pendency of the suit or its partition which ever is earlier. The order passed by the lower court is justified from the facts of the case and it does not require any interference.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, the impugned orders are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant context. 11. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection, by way of impugned orders. Such orders, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional Civil Revision No.5661 of 2011(O&M) 4 jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same are perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so, the impugned orders are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. 13. Needless to mention that, nothing recorded hereinabove would reflect, on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition only. September 16, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5661 of 2011(O&M) 5 C.M.Nos.22593-594-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5661 of 2011 Present: Mr.Vijay Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** Applications are allowed as prayed for. September 16, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE