IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 302 of 2010 Date of decision : October 4, 2010 Taj Bibi ….Petitioner Versus Registrar-cum-Tehsildar & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Plaintiff has filed a suit for issuance of mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to keep the suit property intact till it is partitioned. She also filed an application for temporary injunction. 3. Trial court directed that status quo, as regards possession and nature of the suit property shall be maintained pending disposal of the suit. 4. Respondent-defendant filed an appeal against the order. While dismissing the appeal of the respondent- defendant, Appellate Court observed, while dealing with the submission of the respondent-defendant that he wanted to sell his undivided share, that trial Court’s interim order did not restrain him from selling his share. It is by this Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… observation that the present petitioner (the plaintiff) is aggrieved. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. A co-sharer has every right to alienate his undivided share. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that which portion of the joint property the respondent-defendant would be selling in case he is not restrained from alienating his share. A co-sharer in undivided property can always sell his undivided share, without specifying which particular portion is being sold/alienated. Petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ````````````````````````` October 4, 2010(vt) (Surjit Singh), J