Civil Revision No. 4962 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 20633-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No. 4962 of 2009 Date of decision: 01.09.2009 Bakshish Singh @ Shamsher Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Malook Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.3.2009, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands allowed and the petitioners herein have been restrained from disposing of 1/4th share of the property, while giving liberty to dispose of 3/4th share. The case set up by the plaintiff/respondents was, that they were successors-in-interest of Smt. Nihal Kaur and, therefore, entitled to 1/4th share in the property. The inheritance was claimed from Sh. Jawala Singh, who had land at two places. The land in one of the villages was mutated in favour of Smt. Nihal Kaur, giving her 1/4th share by way of inheritance, whereas land in dispute was mutated in favour of the Civil Revision No. 4962 of 2009 (O&M) -2- petitioners herein. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit in which an application was moved for restraining the petitioners herein from disposing of 1/4th share of the property. The petitioners took up a plea that Smt. Nihal Kaur was not entitled to any share in the property, as Sh. Jawala Singh died prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. The petitioners failed to mention the date of death of Jawala Singh. Mutation of succession was admittedly sanctioned after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. The learned Courts below found, that the plaintiff/respondents had prima facie a case, as Smt. Nihal Kaur was admittely given 1/4th share in the property of Sh. Jawala Singh, in one of the villages. The learned Courts below, therefore, in view of the prima facie case having been proved, came to the conclusion that in the event of disposal of the land, the plaintiff/respondents were likely to suffer irreparable loss. The balance of convenience was also found in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends, that it was for the plaintiffs to prove the date of death of Jawala Singh, to claim inheritance. Having been failed to do so, there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. The order passed by the learned Courts below, therefore, deserves to be set aside. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners is totally mis-conceived. Once, it is not in dispute that in one of the villages, 1/4th share was inherited by Smt. Nihal Kaur, without any objection from the Civil Revision No. 4962 of 2009 (O&M) -3- petitioners, it could not be said that plaintiff/respondents did not have a prima facie case to claim share in the property of Sh. Jawala Singh in other village being successors of Smt. Nihal Kaur. No merit. Dismissed. However, nothing stated above, be taken as expression of opinion on merits of the case. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 01, 2009 R.S.