CR No. 2702 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2702 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 01-11-2010 Tarsem Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Pritpal Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sudhir Paruthi , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Annkur Soni, Advocate for the respondents MAHESH GROVER, J I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The dispute in this case is that the respondents have filed a suit challenging the alienation of the suit property in favour of the petitioner who claim himself to be the bona fide purchaser of the same. The respondents claim that initially the property belongs to one Smt. Gurjit Kaur who was their mother and who expired on 19.11.2003. The plaintiffs-respondents were residing abroad and they had come to perform the last rites of their mother. Defendant no.1 namely Amar Singh allegedly set up a Will executed by Gurjit Kaur in his favour and on the strength of that Will claimed ownership and right to alienate the property. They did so in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the directions given by the learned Trial Court regarding the retraint from alienating the suit property and from removing the trees which findings have been supported by the learned counsel for the respondents. CR No. 2702 of 2010 (O&M) 2 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the orders of the learned Trial Court and Appellate Court cannot be termed to be perverse. The factum of the petitioner being the bona fide purchaser and the fact whether Amar Singh had a right to alienate the property in favour of the petitioner would be determined on the basis of evidence which will come on record during the course of proceedings. If the property is alienated further it is likely to result in complex litigation. The Courts have thus rightly safeguarded the interest of the parties by restraining the petitioner from alienating the property further. In so far as direction regarding cutting of trees is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that this is likely to prejudice the petitioner but at the same time if the petitioner is permitted to cut the trees it will also result in some prejudice to the respondents in the eventuality of finding going in their favour. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that Trial Court shall ensure that the trees upon attaining maturity and upon such an application being made by the petitioner, shall be permitted to be cut in the presence of the Local Commissioner to be appointed by the Court whose expenses shall be borne by the petitioner and such trees if cut may be sold and the proceed therefrom shall be deposited before the learned Trial Court to be disbursed to the party who manages to establish his/her right. With the aforesaid observations and modifications in the impugned order, the revision petition stands disposed of. November 01, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge