CR No. 5129 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5129 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.5.2009 Gopal Singh .. Petitioner v. Avtar Kaur and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B. S. Bhasaur, Advocate for respondent No. 1. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below, whereby in an application filed by respondent No. 1-plaintiff for interim injunction in a suit filed for declaration to the effect that she is owner of 1/5th share in the suit property, the trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession and also alienation. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the order passed by the trial court was modified to the extent that status quo regarding alienation of the property was maintained, whereas a part of that order, directing status quo regarding possession, was set aside. The facts, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that on 15.6.1982, father of the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit property, which was decreed by the trial court in his favour. However, the first appellate court reversed the decree. In RSA No. 1486 of 1987, the decree of the trial court was upheld reversing that of the first appellate court and the suit filed by the father of the petitioner was decreed. Special Leave Petition filed by the parties to the earlier litigation was dismissed. Father of the petitioner died during the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal before this Court and the petitioner was impleaded as his legal representative on the basis of will executed in his favour. Mutation of the suit property was entered in his name in the presence of all other legal heirs of his deceased father-Gurbax Singh. Meaning thereby that they did not have any objection to the transfer of property in the name of the petitioner on the basis of will executed by him. Execution proceedings in the judgment and CR No. 5129 of 2008 [2] decree passed in favour of the petitioner are still pending. During the pendency thereof, respondent No. 1 -sister of the petitioner filed a suit for declaration claiming 1/5th share in the property. It is interim order passed in the aforesaid suit, which is challenged before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, even if the petitioner sells the entire property, the principle of lis pendense would apply and the interest of respondent No. 1 can very well be protected, as the property can be directed to be sold by mentioning the pendency of litigation. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the order passed by the learned courts below regarding status quo of alienation of the suit property is just and fair, as the interest of other proforma defendants in the suit, who were also entitled to their share in the property, was also required to be protected. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that the order passed by the learned court below deserves some modification, i.e., to the extent that the petitioner can be restrained from alienating the property only to the extent claim has been made by respondent No. 1 in the suit, i.e., 1/5th share in the property. Regarding 4/5th share, even though other brothers and sisters are there, but none of them has claimed any right and they were merely impleaded as proforma defendants in the suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff. Accordingly, the impugned order, passed by the learned court below, is modified to the extent that there shall be status quo regarding alienation of the suit property to the extent of 1/5th share to protect the interest of respondent No. 1 in the suit filed by her. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.5.2009 mk