C.R. No. 796 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 796 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 14, 2009 Sarvjit Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. Parkash Kaur …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Lalit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.K. Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jaswinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. Plaintiff has challenged the order dated June 15,2006 passed by Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Ratia and order dated November 20, 2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, whereby the Courts below have dismissed the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioner in her suit for declaration that she is owner in C.R. No. 796 of 2009 [2] possession as co-sharer in suit land measuring 176 kanals 15 marla. In her suit she has claimed that prior to her, it was her father-in-law who was in possession as co-sharer and after his death her husband bequeathed the said land in her favour. She being in possession as owner to the extent of her share was entitled to claim declaration and that the sale deed dated December 22, 2005 executed by Richhpal Singh in favour of defendant- respondent of Khewat No.254 measuring 813 kanals 17 marla share 3256/16277 is wrong as Richhpal Singh was owner of 3256 share only. She also challenged the mutation dated February 3, 2006 sanctioned in the revenue record regarding the land in dispute. She has claimed that Richhpal Singh was not in possession of any land. In her application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC she seeks to restrain the defendant- respondent from raising any construction on any specific portion of the land besides alienating the same. The defendant- respondent has opposed the suit by filing written statement, denying that Chanchal Singh was cultivating 176 kanals 15 marlas of land. Though Chanchal Singh had died on November 13, 1988 but revenue entries continued in his name even after 18 years of his death. The plaintiff- petitioner in collusion with her father had prepared bogus unregistered Will dated November 13, 1988 in favour of her husband Jasbir Singh and thereafter they obtained a collusive decree dated May 18, 1996. Both the Will and the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff are under challenge in Civil Suit titled Balraj Kaur Vs. Jasbir Singh etc. The Courts below prima facie formed an opinion that the revenue entries which were continuing in the name of a dead person C.R. No. 796 of 2009 [3] Chanchal Singh even after 18 years of his death are not believable and the same cannot be relied upon to establish exclusive possession of the plaintiff. The balance of convenience also does not lie in her favour and she will not suffer an irreparable loss in case an ad-interim injunction is not granted to her. It was also observed by the Lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff had not come to the Court with clean hands as she has suppressed the material fact regarding the previous litigation in case Balraj Kaur Vs. Jasbir Singh and another case Sarabjit Kaur Vs.Kartar Singh, as such she was not entitled to the discretionary relief of ad-interim injunction. With the assistance of counsel for both the parties, I have perused the revenue record and the documents made available for perusal. The petitioner has not been shown to be in actual physical possession of the specific khasra numbers mentioned in the heading of the plaint. She has intentionally concealed the previous litigation pertaining to the same land. In the earlier litigation the Will of Chanchal Singh in favour of Jasbir Singh was challenged by Balraj Kaur and Kulwant Kaur and the decree suffered by Jasbir Singh on May 18, 1996 in favour of petitioner has already been considered in the civil suit Balraj Kaur Vs. Jasbir Singh. It will be highly debatable during trial whether still Sarvjit Kaur- petitioner can claim rights on the basis of a decree suffered by her husband Jasbir Singh in whose favour the Will of Chanchal Singh has been disbelieved. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the appeal after determining the factors that she does not have prima facie strong case and that balance of convenience does not C.R. No. 796 of 2009 [4] lie in her favour besides observing that in case the interim injunction is not granted to her she will not suffer an irreparable loss. Dismissed. July 14, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE