IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 13.09.2010 C.R.No.3638 of 2010 Manju Jain ...Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 26.02.2010, whereby the defendants were permitted to raise construction over the suit property subject to furnishing of undertaking before the trial Court so as to raise construction at their own costs and to remove the same in the event of suit being decreed. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration claiming 1/4th share in the estate of her father Chitranjan Dass. The suit property is constituted on 180 square yards of land approximately. The petitioner claims that after the death of her parents, she is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property, which the defendants are depriving her. Alongwith the suit for declaration, the plaintiff filed an application for ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property and also from raising construction. While granting ad interim injunction regarding alienation, the defendants have been allowed to raise construction as referred to above by the learned first Appellate Court. C.R.No.3638 of 2010 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. In the event, the petitioner is able to succeed in respect of her interest in the suit property to the extent of 1/4th share, the plaintiff would be entitled to seek partition of the joint property. The interest of the plaintiff has been adequately safeguarded, as the defendants have been permitted to raise construction on furnishing of affidavit and that such construction shall be at their own costs. Such an order does not prejudice any of the rights of the petitioner. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property shall not be allowed to be leased out by the respondents. Once the defendants have raised construction over the suit property with stipulation that such construction is at their own risk, the defendants shall induct any person as a tenant subject to the rights of the plaintiff to take possession in accordance with law. Any encumbrances including tenancy raised by the defendants cannot defeat the rights of the petitioner, as the defendants can convey their rights subject to the decision of the suit only. Since neither any legal or equitable rights of the plaintiff/petitioner are affected by the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, I do not find any ground for interference is made out with the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court. Dismissed. 13.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2