Civil Revision No.3104 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.3104 of 2009 Decided on : May 29, 2009 Karnail Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Nirmal Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.HNS Gill, Advocate for the respondent – caveator. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.5.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide which he dismissed the appeal against the order dated 2.9.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kharar. The dispute is between the father and son. Karnail Singh, father – plaintiff/petitioner (herein referred as 'the petitioner') had a brother Bachan Singh and two sons, namely; Nirmal Singh and Gian Singh. Bachan Singh being unmarried and issueless had transferred his property in favour of Gian Singh by way of transfer deeds dated 10.3.2003 and 25.7.2003, while the petitioner transferred his property in Civil Revision No.3104 of 2009 [ 2 ] the name of Nirmal Singh, the other son by way of transfer deeds dated 16.6.2005 and 17.6.2005. The allegations levelled by the petitioner while challenging the alleged transfer deeds dated 16.6.2005 and 17.6.2005, are that the same were obtained by Nirmal Singh by way of fraud and misrepresentation on the pretext that the latter i.e. defendant/respondent (herein referred as `the respondent') needed General Power of Attorney for giving the land on `chakota'. The suit was contested by the respondent alleging that out of the two brothers i.e, the petitioner Karnail Singh and Bachan Singh, the latter had transferred his property in the name of Gian Singh (brother of the respondent) and the former had transferred his property in his (respondent') name. The plea of fraud and misrepresentation is not correct. The Trial Court refused to grant the injunction, so also the appellate court dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present petition. Arguments heard and record perused. Admittedly, the petitioner and Bachan Singh were the brothers. Bachan Singh was unmarried and issueless, whereas, the petitioner has two sons, namely; the respondent Nirmal Singh and Gian Singh. It is also admitted fact that Bachan Singh had transferred his property in favour of Gian Singh by way of two transfer deeds dated 10.3.2003 and 25.7.2003. The documents reveal that the petitioner also suffered two transfer deeds dated 16.6.2005 and 17.6.2005, qua his property, in favour of the respondent. Civil Revision No.3104 of 2009 [ 3 ] Moreover, the suit was filed after three years of the execution of the transfer deeds, challenging the same on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioner remained silent for over three years and his silence has not been explained in any manner. No doubt, the petitioner raised the objection at the time of sanctioning of the mutation, however, he suffered a statement before the Appellate Authority sanctioning the mutation that the transfer deeds were correct and the mutation should be sanctioned in favour of the respondent. At that time, no allegations regarding fraud and misrepresentation were levelled. Not only this, brother of the respondent, namely Gian Singh had also filed the civil suit challenging the transfer deeds in question, which was contested by the petitioner, his wife Ajmer Kaur and the respondent Nirmal Singh, wherein, they filed the written statement admitting the genuineness of the transfer deeds. The petitioner also filed an affidavit in support of the genuineness of the transfer deeds in the said suit. The transfer deeds being registered one and having been suffered three years prior to their challenge, also add to their genuineness. Needless to state, the alienation, if any, is made during the pendency of the suit, shall be subject to the principles of lis-pendens. Even otherwise, the powers of this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction are very limited and need not be lightly invoked, unless the impugned order suffers from any perversity or arbitrariness. Merely because a different view of the matter is possible, is not a ground to interfere with the same. Civil Revision No.3104 of 2009 [ 4 ] In view of the above, this petition sans any merit and thus, the same is hereby dismissed. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE May 29, 2009 `gian'