Criminal Revision No.1707 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1707 of 2007 Date of Decision: January 17, 2008 Smt.Karminder Pal Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS Gurpreet Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.A.S.Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Mother and daughter are in contest over a property and are now before this court fighting in this revision petition. The dispute is about a piece of land measuring 60 kanals 18 marlas owned by father of Karminder Pal Kaur, who is maternal grand-mother of Gurpreet Kaur daughter of Karminder Pal Kaur. This land was transferred to Karminder Pal Kaur by her mother as per court decree dated 20.4.1985. Gurpreet Kaur is the only child out of the wedlock between Karminder Pal Kaur and Major Charan Singh, Criminal Revision No.1707 of 2007 : 2 : who served in the Indian Army. He had purchased a land comprised in khasra Nos.572 and 581/2/2 in the name of his wife Karminder Pal Kaur. Presently Gurpreet Kaur is statedly living in Holland. She has now filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 71 kanals 9 marlas, situated in village Radaur, H.B.No.45, Tehsil Jagadhri and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, who is none else than her mother, from alienating the suit land in any manner. Along with the suit, she also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC praying for interim injunction against her mother (petitioner in the revision petition) from alienating the suit land during the pendency of the suit. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri declined the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC finding that no prima- facie case was made out and balance of convenience also was not in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. She went in appeal against the said order, which has been allowed and petitioner-mother restrained from alienating the suit property or creating charge over it in any manner during the pendency of the suit. The reason which mainly weighed with the Appellate Court is that petitioner was found to be under the influence of anti- social elements, who claimed themselves to be Babas and have hypnotized this 85 years old lady in order to grab her family property. It was urged before the Appellate Court that the petitioner is old and infirm lady and had regularly shown indication of mental ill-health so much so that she was not even aware of suit and appeal filed, it being handi work of Babas etc. The Appellate Court, on the basis of material on record, came to conclude that petitioner is not of a sound Criminal Revision No.1707 of 2007 : 3 : disposing mind and had executed certain sale deeds, which cannot be explained and the money so got out of the sales is also not traceable. The Appellate Court also found fault with the view taken by the Civil Judge that respondent Gurpeet Kaur being a coparcenary would have remedy to challenge these sales and get it set-aside in subsequent suit and as such injunction cannot be granted as she has an alternative efficacious remedy. In addition, respondent-daughter also pleaded that the property has devolved upon her by way of a family settlement and accordingly the judgment relied upon like Gopi Chand and Ors. Vs. Ram Chander and others, 2001(2) All India Land Laws Reports 538 will be distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Mr.A.S.Jattana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has mainly found fault with the finding returned by the Appellate Court that respondent is a coparcener and also to challenge the family settlement, which was heavily relied upon by the respondent. During the course of hearing on 7.5.2007, a certified copy of the compromise arrived at between the parties, which was duly signed by petitioner Karminder Pal Kaur, was produced before the court. Karminder Pal Kaur was present in the court and denied she having reached the said compromise. When shown the copy of the compromise, she admitted her signatures on the certified copy thereof. This document was taken on record as Ex.PA. The original compromise was thus requisitioned from the court concerned which has now been received and is available on record. At the outset, Mr.Jattana was confronted with this document which contains the signatures of petitioner at two places. Criminal Revision No.1707 of 2007 : 4 : The learned counsel has tried to explain that the signed paper left with the counsel was utilised in writing this compromise. The counsel could not satisfactorily answer when apprised that manner in which the signatures of the petitioner appear on this document on same side at two different columns of the paper, one on extreme right and another on extreme left generally are not used by the Advocates. Mr.Jattana then referred to the case of Ganeshi Vs. Smt.Rajwan and another, 1985 P.L.J. 435 to emphasis that the married daughter of a collateral cannot be a member of Joint Hindu Family and, thus, cannot be a party to a family arrangement or partition. Firstly there is nothing on record to indicate that the property in dispute is a Joint Hindu Family property or a coparcenary property. As can be seen from the averment in the suit, the part of property was self-acquired by the husband of petitioner and part had come to her from her mother. It is also not a case of family arrangement or a partition which would attract the ratio of law laid down in the case of Ganeshi (supra). Through this compromise, the petitioner had relinquished her right in the property in favour of her daughter, respondent. Nothing was kept for the petitioner to term it as a family partition. Even otherwise, in view of the changed position of law, the daughter is under no infirmity and can be a coparcener in Hindu un-divided family and as such this limb of argument of Mr.Jattana would not be of any help to the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 17, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE Criminal Revision No.1707 of 2007 : 5 :