IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 220 of 2008 Date of decision: 19.07.2010 ______________________________________________________ Sh. Anil & others .....Petitioners. Versus Sh. Bhadur Singh and another .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. ______________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). A suit has been filed by the petitioners, challenging alienation of a part of his property by respondent No. 1, Bhadur Singh, father of the petitioners, in favour of respondent No. 2, Ashish Negi. Petitioner’s case is that the property, which has been transferred, had been inherited by his father, Bhadur Singh, respondent No. 1, from his ancestors and, therefore, the same is ancestral property and that he (petitioner), being son, has a right by birth in the ancestral property. Sale is alleged to have been made, without there being any legal necessity. 2. An application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, was filed seeking issuance of temporary injunction, restraining respondent No. 2, Ashish Negi, from changing the nature of the suit 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -: 2 :- property, pending disposal of the suit and also restraining respondent No. 1, Bhadur Singh, from alienating more property during the pendency of suit. Trial Court allowed the application. Appeal was filed by the respondents in the Court of District Judge. Learned District Judge has partly accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court to the extent it directs respondent Bhadur Singh not to sell any part of the rest of the suit land except for legal necessity. It is against this order of partly setting aside the order of the trial Court that the present Revision Petition is directed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. No material has been placed on record by petitioner, showing that the property is ancestral, as has been observed by the trial Court in its impugned order. Also, no material has been placed on record of the present petition, showing that Bhadur Singh came to acquire the suit property by way of inheritance from his ancestors. 5. In view of the abovesaid position, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Appellate Court. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Observation, if any, made hereinabove with regard to the merits of the case, shall not be taken into consideration by the courts below, while deciding the main suit. (Surjit Singh) Judge 19th July, 2010 (rajni)