Civil Revision No. 4003 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4003 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.3.2009 Harnek Kumar and others ..... Petitioners vs Harish Sharma and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiffs have approached this court challenging the order dated 16.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, whereby in an appeal filed by respondents no. 1 to 3, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kharar, granting interim injunction in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs was reversed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration claiming themselves to be co-owner in joint possession of suit land and also challenging the sale-deeds dated 18.10.1996 and 29.10.1996 executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondents no. 1 to 3, with the plea that he was not competent to dispose of the property, the same being joint Hindu family coparcenary and ancestral property. Initially the learned trial court finding that prima facie case has been made out by the petitioners granted interim injunction, however, the learned Lower Appellate Court reversed the same finding that the petitioners have not been able to make out a prima facie case and further that balance of convenience was not in their favour. It is this order which is challenged before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been able to prove from the material placed on record that the property in dispute was ancestral which had devolved on respondent no. 4 from the great grand-father of petitioners no. 1 and 2 and the same being joint Hindu family property could not have been disposed of by respondent Civil Revision No. 4003 of 2008 (2) no. 4 without there being any legal necessity. As the sale-deeds executed by him are under challenge, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss in case during the pendency of the suit, the respondents are not restrained from alienating the suit property, otherwise third party rights may step up which will complicate the matter. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 submitted that a perusal of the order passed by the learned Appellate court shows that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case in their favour that the property in dispute was ancestral and in the absence thereof no case was made out for grant of interim injunction in their favour. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is a case where respondent no. 4 had sold the property to respondents no. 1 to 3 way back in October 1996. The suit was filed on 13.3.2002 challenging the sale-deeds taking the plea that the suit property is ancestral. Though the petitioners have placed on record certain material to show that the property in dispute is joint Hindu Family coparcenary property but this is yet to be proved on record by leading cogent evidence linking the property with the property which is owned by the great grand- father of petitioners no. 1 and 2 and to prove its nature of being ancestral property. Respondents no. 1 to 3 as on date are buyer of property for consideration, they cannot be deprived of their right to use the property to its best. However, still considering that the suit is pending and because of alienation of the property, third party rights may step up which may further complicate the matter, I deem it appropriate to modify the impugned order passed by the learned court below by directing that there would be no restrain on the alienation of the property by respondents no. 1 to 3, if they so desire, however, it would be incumbent upon them to mention in the sale- deed regarding the pendency of the suit and also that the vendees will abide by any judgment, if any, passed against respondents no. 1 to 3. The intimation of sale, if any, shall be furnished to the court. The present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid modification. 23.3.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge