C.R. No. 590 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 590 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 12, 2009 Satar and others .. Petitioners v. Smt. Satara and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. Shweta Singh Chauhan, Advocate for Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The successors-in-interest of the plaintiff are before this Court challenging the orders passed by the learned courts below, whereby the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the respondents from alienating the suit land by way of sale etc., was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that father of petitioners No. 1 and 4 and husband of petitioner No. 5 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit land and the mutations sanctioned on 7.4.2005 in favour of the respondents-defendants and wills dated 5.6.2003 and 26.2.2005 executed by deceased Balia in favour of the defendants are illegal, in effective, inoperative and a result of fraud and misrepresentation, which are not binding on the rights of the petitioners. Further permanent injunction was prayed for restraining the respondents-defendants from alienating or creating any charge on the suit property. The property in dispute was left by one Balia, who died on 8.3.2005. The respondents-defendants are daughter, daughter-in-law of pre-deceased son of Balia and minor grand daughter. There was no male issue. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners claimed himself to be the nearest collateral and claimed inheritance of the property on the basis of customary law. Both the courts below prima facie did not find any merit in the submissions made by the petitioners for the purpose of grant of interim injunction and accordingly the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the parties in the suit are governed by customary law in terms of which the property cannot be C.R. No. 590 of 2009 [2] inherited by a female descendent and the petitioners, being nearest male descendents, are the heirs who can inherit the property. However, the fact that the respondents are directly related with Balia, may be female descendants, is not denied. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The claim of the petitioners for interim injunction was dismissed relying upon a judgment of this Court in Taj Mohammad and others v. Alyas Minor and others, 1997(2) Civil Court Cases 285 (P&H), wherein it was held that the daughter, who is alive, has a better claim to the property as against the collateral. The custom sought to be pleaded by the petitioners to claim right over the property is yet to be established, whereas the respondents, being direct descendants of deceased Balia, having produced wills also in defence, which prima facie cannot be faulted with, are entitled to inherit the property. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. However, nothing expressed above shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.2.2009 mk