IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3222 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 10.1.2008 Smt.Surjit Kaur ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate vs. Smt.Bhajan Kaur ....Respondent(s) through Mr.H.N.S.Gill, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.5.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar whereby an order dated 6.10.2006 passed by the learned trial Court while deciding an application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC has been set aside. It may be mentioned here that vide aforementioned order dated 6.10.2006, the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Anandpur Sahib directed both the parties to maintain status-quo qua possession, alienation, construction, existence of trees etc. till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved at the aforesaid order, the respondent-defendant preferred an appeal which has been partly allowed and the order of status- quo has been modified to the extent that both the parties have been given liberty “to alienate the suit land to the extent of their respective shares” though they have been restrained from alienating the suit land in excess of C.R. No.3222 of 2007 -2- their respective shares. The petitioner-plaintiff feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid order, has filed this revision petition. It is stated that the petitioner and the respondent are sisters who are daughters of Kesara Singh (since deceased). The said Kesara Singh sold land measuring 34 kanals 3 marlas to his wife Smt.Chint Kaur. The said Smt. Chint Kaur thereafter is stated to have executed a gift deed in respect of the said land in favour of one of her daughters, namely, the respondent- defendant. The petitioner has now filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming herself to be a co-sharer in the land measuring 104 kanals 4 marlas. It is in the said civil suit that she also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC which has since been decided by the Courts below, as stated above. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as also the pleadings. Since the gift deed allegedly executed by Smt.Chint Kaur in favour of the respondent-defendant which pertains to land measuring 34 kanals 3 marlas has been impugned by the petitioner-plaintiff in the suit on various grounds including that Smt.Chint Kaur on account of her old age was not in a sound state of mind to execute the gift deed, in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation between the parties, it would be just and proper if the respondent-defendant is restrained from alienating the said suit land during the pendency of the suit. Similarly, the learned First Appellate Court appears to be justified in modifying the order of the learned trial Court to the extent that both the parties can alienate the suit property to the extent of C.R. No.3222 of 2007 -3- their respective shares though they are restrained from alienating in excess to their respective shares. In other words, the parties have been rightly permitted to alienate the suit land to the extent of their respective shares which means that the respondent-defendant can also alienate her undisputed half share in the subject land after excluding the land which is stated to have been gifted to her by Smt.Chint Kaur. Ordered accordingly. Further with a view to ensure that the third party rights, if created, may unnecessarily cause prejudice to the parties, it is directed that as and when any sale deed is executed, the factum of pendency of the civil suit between the parties shall be specifically recited therein. Similarly, both the parties shall be entitled to alienate their undisputed shares only and not the specific Khasra Nos. as the properties are claimed to be owned by them jointly. Accordingly, the order of the First Appellate Court is modified to the extent stated above. It is further clarified that the observations, if any, made by the First Appellate Court as well as by this Court are for the purpose of deciding the ad-interim injunction matter only and shall have no bearing at the time of final adjudication of the suit. Disposed of. January 10, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE