Civil Revision No.7095 of 2010(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.7095 of 2010(O&M) Decided on : February 10, 2011 Harbans Kaur ... Petitioner VERSUS Jasbir Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Kuldeep Singh Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition assails the order dated 5.10.2010 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ropar accepting the appeal against the judgment dated 9.11.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ropar granting ad interim injunction in favour of the respondent – plaintiff (herein referred as `the respondent') restraining the petitioner - defendant (herein referred as `the petitioner') from alienating the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The facts, as essential for disposal of the petition, are that the petitioner Harbans Kaur claiming to be an unmarried daughter of Harchand Singh - respondent No.12, alleged that the suit property is joint co- Civil Revision No.7095 of 2010(O&M) [ 2 ] parcenary property belonging to her and respondents No.9 to 12. The sale- deed executed by Harchand Singh in favour of respondent No.1 is wrong, illegal and null and void. Respondents No.2 to 12 admitted the claim of the petitioner, whereas, respondent No.1 contested the case alleging that the suit property is not joint co-parcenary property and the petitioner has no concern with the same. The sale-deed is a valid document having been executed by respondents No.9 to 12 without any pressure and influence, and the mutation has already been sanctioned in his favour. The Trial court granted the injunction in favour of the petitioner, whereas, the Appellate Court reversed the order. Heard. The copy of Jamabandi for the year 1983 reveals that Hazura Singh s/o Inder Singh, Harbans Singh, Malkiat Singh sons of Harchand Singh, Bhag Singh s/o Hazura Singh are shown to be the owners in possession of the land measuring 38 Kanal 3 Marlas, 24 Kanal 1 Marla, 92 Kanal 10 Marlas and 2 Kanal 16 Marlas, including the suit land. The respondents No.9 to 12, who are alleged to have sold the land vide sale- deed dated 16.11.2007, are shown to be the co-sharers along with other owners. The aforesaid sale-deed being a registered document is a prima facie proof of ownership in favour of respondent No.1; the petitioner is still to establish by way of cogent evidence that the sale-deed was the result of fraud or without consideration, legal necessity or benefit of the estate. It is also still to be established if the suit property is ancestral co-parcenary and joint Hindu Family property. Even otherwise, when respondent No.1 has a registered document in his favour, then it would be too harsh to stay Civil Revision No.7095 of 2010(O&M) [ 3 ] the alienation. However, the rights of the petitioner could be safeguarded by imposing the condition that any transaction made by respondent No.1 would suffer from principles of lis-pendence, if the suit preferred by the petitioner is ultimately decided in her favour. It would also not be inappropriate to mention here that at the time of entering into any such transaction, the pendency of suit would be recorded in the sale-deed. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed. February 10, 2011 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE