Civil Revision No.2283 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc.No.27200-CII of 2011 and Civil Revision No.2283 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.11.2011 Sahabdeen ....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Smt.Deepa and others ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL *** Present : Mr.Satish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for respondent No.5. None for remaining respondents. *** A.N.JINDAL, J (Oral) Having sold his 552/1976 share in the total land of 101 kanals 5 marlas, as fully detailed in para No.1 of the plaint to defendant No.1 to 4- respondent Nos.1 to 4 (herein referred as 'respondent Nos.1 to 4') vide sale deed dated 24.01.2006, who had further sold to defendant No.5-respondent No.5 (herein referred as 'respondent No.5') vide sale deed dated 24.12.2008, the plaintiff-petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') has come to challenge the sale deed and has sought the ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents not to interfere in his peaceful possession over the said land. Both the Courts below have declined to grant injunction, hence this petition. Civil Revision No.2283 of 2011 (O&M) 2 The sale deed No.2261 was executed by the petitioner on 24.01.2006 whereas he filed this suit on 04.11.2009. No doubt, the petitioner is blind yet he is not stated to be otherwise of unsound mind and incapable of understanding the contents of the sale deed. Respondent Nos.1 to 4, who had purchased the said land from the petitioner vide sale deed No.2261 dated 24.01.2006, further sold the same to respondent No.5 vide sale deeds No.1899 dated 08.12.2008, 1922 dated 11.12.2008, 2019 dated 24.12.2008 and 2230 dated 29.01.2009 and on the basis of the aforesaid sale deeds, mutations have been sanctioned firstly in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and thereafter in favour of respondent No.5. The sale deed No.2261 dated 24.01.2006 which has been executed by the petitioner bears the signatures of his wife and she signed as one of the attesting witnesses. Even her photograph also figures on the sale deed which indicates her consent. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be said to have a prima facie case for grant of injunction. Apparently, no fraud appears to have been committed yet the onus to prove the fraud is upon the petitioner, who has failed to prima facie prove the same by any evidence. However, without further commenting on the merits of the case, the defendants having spent huge money for transfer of the property, cannot be deprived of their rights while granting injunction to the petitioner. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL ) November 15, 2011. JUDGE mamta