IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.957 of 2007 Date of decision: February 29, 2008. Tirath Singh & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Kuldeep Kaur ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri S.S. Chandi, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral): This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 1.4.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar whereby in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent – plaintiff, the petitioner – defendants have been restrained from interfering into her possession over the property in dispute. They have also been restrained from alienating the suit property in any manner till the disposal of the suit, as well as against the judgment dated 7.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, upholding the aforesaid order of the trial court. The dispute pertains to ownership and possessory rights over the suit property which was owned by deceased Gurmukh Singh. The respondent – plaintiff is widow of Gurmukh Singh though the petitioners have disputed the said relationship. Gurmukh Singh died on 17.11.2005 leaving behind the respondent – plaintiff as his sole legal heir. The petitioners, on the other hand, are claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of Will dated 26.10.2005 alleged to have been executed by Gurmukh Singh bequeathing his properties to the petitioners. Both the courts have concurrently held that from the material on record, including the identity card issued by the District Social Security Officer, Ration Card, account books of the joint account of deceased Gurmukh Singh and the respondent – plaintiff, prima-facie, there is overwhelming evidence to prove that she is wife of deceased Gurmukh Singh. There being no dispute that Gurmukh Singh died issueless, it is obvious that the respondent – plaintiff is his sole legal heir. As regards to to the Will, the competence of the deceased to execute the same and/or validity thereof is yet to be gone into by the civil court. In these circumstances, the grant of ad-interim injunction in favour of the respondent – plaintiff by the courts below, warrants no interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, however, has vehemently argued that at the best the respondent – plaintiff can claim herself to be a co- sharer of the petitioners who are allegedly in physical possession of the suit land, therefore, no injunction could be granted against of a co-sharer. She has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. Gurudas and others v. Rasaranjan and others, (2006)8 SCC 367 wherein the principles of 'balance of convenience' and 'irreparable injury' have been explained by their Lordships. As per the revenue record, Gurmukh Sigh was in cultivating possession of the suit land till he died on 17.11.2005. Thereafter, though mutation was initially sanctioned in favour of the petitioners, however, on an appeal by the respondent – plaintiff, the said order is stated to have been stayed. The respondent – plaintiff being the sole legal heir, has stepped into shoes of her deceased husband Gurmukh Singh and has made out a prima facie case of irreparable loss if she is dispossessed from the suit land. In these circumstances, no interference with the impugned orders is called for. Dismissed. However, it would be in the interest of justice that the learned trial court expedites the suit proceedings and makes an endeavour to conclude the same as early as possible and preferably within one year. February 29, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge