IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 687 of 2008 (M/S) Darshan Lal ………… Petitioner. Versus Smt. Rekha ……….. Respondent Mr. M.C. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Rawal, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C.J. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order as well as the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, I find that the learned Court below has not erred in any manner in passing the impugned order. Applying the principles of law contained in Section 19 (2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the leaned Court below has rightly held that the property in the possession and under the control of the petitioner is a coparcenary property. In the course of the judgment under challenge in this petition, it has also emerged that despite constraint order, the petitioner had disposed of the property or a part of the property. No interferences is warranted. The petition is dismissed. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 09.07.2008 A