C.R.No.4553 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4553 of 2009 Date of Decision : 12.08.2009 Smt. Satto @ Santosh ...Petitioner Versus Heera Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the Courts below, whereby an application for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property and from getting enhanced amount of compensation of her share, was dismissed. The property in dispute is that of Devi Lal, father of the plaintiff. The defendants are sons of Devi Lal. The plaintiff claims the estate of Devi Lal by natural succession by challenging the Will dated 10.4.1995 executed and registered with Sub Registrar, Faridabad and in favour of the defendants. In the course of proceedings, it came out that the plaintiff has suffered a statement in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 giving up her share in favour of the defendants. Both the Courts have declined the application for ad interim C.R.No.4553 of 2009 2 injunction in view of her statement given before the learned Addl. District Judge, Fardiabad and to the effect that only four sons of Devi Lal were the legal representatives and entitled to receive the amount of compensation of the acquired land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the said statement is absolutely incorrect. The affidavit filed at the instance of the plaintiff is not identified by any person and that such affidavit is not even signed by the plaintiff. It is for this reason the said affidavit or the statement made before the Court was not challenged by the plaintiff in the civil suit. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner based on surmises and conjectures. Prima facie the statement made allegedly on behalf of the plaintiff before the Court would be deemed to be a valid statement, unless the plaintiff brings on record sufficient facts to show that it was a case of impersonation. In the absence of any such prima facie evidence, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be said to be unfair and unjust, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 12.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE