C.R. No.6662 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.6662 of 2006 Date of Decision: 29.1.2008 Mukand Hari Marwaha .....Petitioner Vs. Renu Marwaha and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the respondents. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner impugns an order dated 18.8.2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, reversing the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,Jalandhar, dismissing the application for grant of ad-interim injunction to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner and respondent no.1 are husband and wife. Marital differences between them were settled and to secure the welfare of their minor children, the petitioner purchased 7 shops in the name of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1, thereafter, executed an agreement not to sell these shops in the name of the petitioner's mother. Despite this gesture of goodwill, the respondent did not return to the matrimonial home. Alongwith her relatives, she made an attempt to take forcible possession of the shops, compelling the petitioner to file a suit for permanent injunction, praying that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession. The learned trial Court allowed the application but the appellate Court accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and reversed the order passed by the learned trial Court. C.R. No.6662 of 2006 2 It is submitted that the petitioner is in physical possession of the shops and, therefore, is entitled to the protection of law even if the property stands in the name of respondent no.1. The learned appellate Court erred in holding that an injunction could not be granted against a true owner, as there is no evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner is in possession. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the property was purchased by respondent no.1 from funds provided by her father. The sale deed reflecting her as the owner has not been impugned, therefore, the injunction was rightly declined. The petitioner has abandoned respondent no.1. Her only source of security is these shops. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Both parties claim possession of the disputed shops. The sale deed, however, reflects respondent no.1 as owner in possession. The sale deed contains a recital evidencing the delivery of possession to respondent no.1. The sale deed also bears the signatures of the petitioner as attorney of the vendor. The petitioner cannot now resile from the recital in the sale deed and asserts his possession. The petitioner has failed to refer to any cogent material to infer his possession. The appellate Court, therefore, rightly reversed the order passed by the trial Court. As the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law or of fact, as would warrant interference, the present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 29.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE