Civil Revision No.5732 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5732 of 2010 Date of Decision:-12.01.2011 Hari Dass. ......Petitioner. Versus Rajender & Ors. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the Respondents. *** JASWANT SINGH, J(ORAL) Petitioner-plaintiff has filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved against the order dated 15.06.2010(P-2) whereby on the application under order 39 rules 1 & 2 CPC regarding stay of the construction by the respondents-defendants over the suit land has been declined; further prayer is for quashing the order dated 24.08.2010(P-1) whereby the appeal has been dismissed. Briefly noticed the facts are that plaintiff filed a suit to the effect that the relinquishing deed dated 20.9.2002 is null and void due to fraud and further prayed for consequential relief of permanent injunction. It is averred that plaintiff and defendants are family members and relatives of each other. Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration primarily directed Civil Revision No.5732 of 2010 #2# against his brothers that they are joint owners in the suit land. Vide the relinquishing deed in question the shares of aunts of the plaintiff and defendant no.1-Rajinder were relinquished in favour of plaintiff and the defendant no.1-Rajinder to the extent of 45% and 15% of father and aunts. The learned trial court vide order dated 15.06.2010(P-2) had passed an interim direction protecting the suit land from alienation while declining the raising of any construction over the suit land which is in joint possession of the co-sharers. The mutation was also sanctioned on 28.12.2002. The appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2010(P-1). The learned Appellate Court has noticed that petitioner- plaintiff has not been able to prima facie prove his possession over any part of the land in the joint ownership, therefore, his status as a co-sharer without actual possession would not be enough to restrain any co-sharer from raising construction on the areas in the possession to the extent of their shareholdings. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the respondent- defendant Rajinder and other respondents has fairly conceded that construction, if any, raised by the defendants during the pendency of the suit shall be at their own risk and responsibility and no right on that account to claim any benefit or compensation would accrue to the defendants. In view of this no further interference is required to be exercised by this court by invoking the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 12th January, 2011 Vinay