CR No. 6767 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6767 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.11.2011 Bahadur Singh ....Petitioner Versus Parkash Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.4.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 7.10.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura vide which the petitioner was restrained from alienating or encumbering the suit land by way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or in any other manner to anybody, was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that Parkash Kaur-respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming herself to be a joint owner in possession of 1/14th share of the agricultural land measuring 102 Kanals and 8 Marlas. The Will dated 27.5.1992, CR No. 6767 of 2011 (O&M) 2 executed by Hari Singh s/o Amar Singh, father of the parties, was also challenged as the same was stated to be a result of fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioner took the stand that Will was genuine and executed by their father Hari Singh. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 for temporary ad interim injunction was also moved alongwith the suit by the plaintiff-respondent No.1, which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 7.10.2009, vide which the defendant Nos.1-petitioner and defendant No.2 were restrained from alienating or encumbering the suit land by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or in any other manner to anybody till the decision of the suit. Aggrieved against the said order Annexure P-3, the present petitioner-Bahadur Singh preferred appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 21.4.2011 (Annexure P-5), by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala thereby affirming the order passed by learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned courts below have wrongly allowed the application for ad-interim injunction filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff. He further contends that the genuineness of the Will could not be doubted as the father of the parties had survived 13 years after execution of the Will, which is in favour of both the sons and the daughters have been excluded for which the reasons have been cited. He further contends that the learned courts below have wrongly erred in holding that the property in question is a coparcenary and ancestral. He further contends that the Will executed by their father is a genuine one because the suit land is a self acquired property of Hari Singh, father of parties and he was competent to execute the Will in favour of his sons. CR No. 6767 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Therefore, the orders passed by learned courts below are liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file carefully. Law is well settled that at this stage, prima facie case, balance of convenience and the fact that as to whether irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner-defendant No.1, if ad interim injunction is not granted, are to be seen. Both the courts below have observed that the genuineness of the Will is to be established by leading cogent and credible evidence by respective parties. Both the courts below, prima facie, came to the conclusion that the share of the respondent No.1-plaintiff is included in the suit land being a joint Hindu family property. Therefore, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned orders, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed in limine. 7.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE