C.R. No. 3245 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3245 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.5.2009 Bhajan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Sunila ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Radheshyam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 5.5.2009 passed by learned Court below whereby that of trial Court was reversed in proceedings for interim relief in a suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for declaration and protection of his possession. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner in the suit claimed that the sale of the suit property effected by his father on October 21, 2005 was without any legal necessity. The property was ancestral in which the petitioner was also entitled to share. Learned trial Court vide order dated October 20, 2007 directed the parties to maintain status-quo regarding possession and ownership. However, the learned lower Appellate Court reversed the order finding that the petitioner is yet to prima-facie establish that the property was ancestral. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property had devolved on the father of the petitioner from his grandfather. Mutation itself shows that it was ancestral property having been sold by the father of the petitioner without there being any legal necessity. The sale is liable to be set aside as the petitioner is in possession of the property and possession during the pendency of the suit is liable to be protected and further the respondent deserves to be restrained from further alienating the property. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any C.R. No. 3245 of 2009 (O&M) 2 merit in the submission made. After the sale of the property by the father of the petitioner to the respondent for consideration the dispute was sought to be raised regarding the property being ancestral and the sale being without legal necessity. It is mentioned in the sale deed executed by father of the petitioner in favour of respondent, as has been read over by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the possession of the suit property was delivered to her at the time of execution of sale deed. The issue as to whether the property is ancestral or not and further whether the same was sold without any legal necessity, are yet to be gone into by the Court. As on today prima-facie respondent is a bonafide purchaser for consideration. During the pendency of the suit, she cannot be deprived to enjoy the fruits of the property. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 29.5.2009 JUDGE Reema