C. R. No. 4571 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4571 of 2006 Date of Decision : January 15, 2010 Madan Lal .... Petitioner Vs. Hari Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Chetan Salathia, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Madan Lal has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below in securing temporary injunction. Plaintiff's father Nasib Singh sold 17 kanals 19 marlas land and some other land to Hirda and Swaran (predecessors of defendants no.1 to 7). The said sale was challenged by one Pirthi – a co-lateral of Nasib Singh vendor. The suit was decreed and it was held that sale in favour of the vendees would not be binding on the reversionary rights of the said plaintiff or the collaterals of vendor Nasib Singh. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court in that suit were upheld up to this Court in second appeal. C. R. No. 4571 of 2006 2 The plaintiff's father Nasib Singh vendor is still alive. However, the defendants, in order to deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of the aforesaid judgment and decree, intend to alienate the suit land and defendants no.1 to 7 have already alienated one kanal land to defendant no.8. The plaintiff accordingly sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land and from wasting the same by digging earth, till final decision of the suit. The defendants resisted the suit and the application and denied the previous litigation. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, vide order dated 30.01.2006, dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment dated 17.05.2006. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Tulsi Bai etc. vs. Karam Chand reported as 1979 (2) HLR 531, contended that defendants no.1 to 7, being limited owners, cannot alienate the suit land. However, this judgment has no applicability to the instant case because in that case, limited estate of a female hindu was in issue. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jujhar Singh vs. Giani Talok Singh reported as 1986 P. L. J. 346 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lal Dass vs. Raghbir Dass and another reported as 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 415 and contended that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit during the lifetime of his father. However, this contention is also untenable because the aforesaid judgments C. R. No. 4571 of 2006 3 relate to right of coparcener to seek injunction against karta regarding alienation of joint hindu family property. In the instant case, however, plaintiff's father has already alienated the suit land. The fact remains that sale in favour of predecessors of defendants no.1 to 7 was successfully challenged and was held to be not binding on the reversioners of vendor Nasib Singh, who is father of plaintiff. Grievance of plaintiff is that if defendants no.1 to 7 alienate the suit land, the alienees would raise plea of being bona fide purchasers. However, this grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by directing defendants no.1 to 7 that while alienating the suit land, during pendency of the suit, they shall specifically recite in the deed of alienation about judgment and decree dated 15.07.1960 passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No.963 of 1959 titled Pirthi vs. Nasib Singh (as upheld up to this Court) so that the alienees may not raise plea of being bona fide purchasers without notice of the said judgment and decree. It is ordered accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that defendants no.1 to 7 should also be restrained from digging earth in the suit land during pendency of the suit. However, no sufficient case for granting the said relief is made out. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed partly to the extent indicated herein above. However, nothing observed herein before shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. January 15, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE