IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 376 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.11.2010 Karam Chand and another …Petitioners. Versus Puran Dass and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 26th May, 2010 whereby the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs) and upheld the order dated 15.09.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sirmaur District at Nahan, rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs for grant of interim relief. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit before the learned Courts below praying that the respondents be 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 restrained from alienating the suit land since the same was joint land of the parties and had been inherited by the plaintiffs from their maternal grand father. The plaintiffs alleged that it was only when they found that the defendants were selling the land that they got the revenue entries checked and then came to know that on the basis of some Will, alleged to have been executed by their grand father Shri Rulia Ram, mutation of the property had been attested in favour of the defendants on 29.7.1972. It was alleged that the respondents are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. Both the Courts below have held that presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the revenue record which continued for the last about 38 years. There is also material on record to show that one of the plaintiffs Madan Lal purchased some land from the defendants in district-Ambala, which they had inherited under the same Will. The defendants have also set up affidavits allegedly executed by the mother(s) of the plaintiffs in which they had accepted the 3 validity of the Will. There is no dispute that these affidavits were attested in the year 1972. 3. Now the plaintiffs allege that not only is the Will forged but also that the affidavits are forged and the signatures/thumb impressions on the same are not of their mother(s). Shri Deepak Kaushal, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, has laid great stress on the fact that the mutation in question was attested before the death of Rulia Ram. On going through the pleadings, I find that there is dispute with regard to the death of Rulia Ram. These facts will have to be decided in the main suit but at this stage after 38 years both the Courts below rightly held that there was no material to prima facie come to the opinion that the Will had not been executed. It may, however, be clarified any disposal of the property will be subject to the principle of lis pendens. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. 22nd November, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge