IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 417 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.8.2011 Pardeep Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus Nanak ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Salochna Kaundal, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Una whereby the appeal of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) was allowed and the order of the learned trial Court was set- aside and an interim injunction was passed restraining the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) from changing the nature of the suit land by raising any construction thereupon and they were also restrained from alienating the suit land and creating any encumbrance thereupon. 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 2. It is not necessary to go into the entire dispute. However, the dispute revolves around the property of late Shri Jagat Ram. Plaintiff claims that he is the son of Jagat Ram entitled to inherit his property. The defendants are the sister of Jagat Ram and the person to whom she has sold the property on the basis of the mutation attested in the year 1998 wherein the estate of Shri Jagat Ram after his death in the year 1991 was mutated in her favour. 3. At this stage, this Court is not going into the question whether the plaintiff is the son of Jagat Ram or not. His allegation is that he is the son of Jagat Ram. This allegation has still to be proved. The petitioner has paid substantial amount as money to the sister of Jagat Ram for transfer of the property. A balance has to be struck between the two competing interests. 4. Therefore, in my opinion the learned lower Appellate Court was justified in restraining the petitioners from alienating or creating any encumbrance upon the suit land but he was not justified in restraining the defendants from raising any construction. The interest of the plaintiff can be protected by giving certain directions. Therefore, this portion of the order is modified and it is ordered that the petitioners shall be entitled to raise construction subject to the condition that this construction 3 shall be raised at their own risk and cost and also subject to the condition that the petitioners shall file an affidavit before the trial Court that in case they loose the suit they shall either hand over the suit property in its original form to the plaintiff or shall not ask for the cost of the construction. With these observations the petition is disposed of. No costs. 1st August, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.