TARSEM SINGH Vs. PARKASH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Parkash Kaur filed suit for permanent injunction against Tarsem Singh and Sardul Singh restraining them from making any addition or alteration or reconstruction or changing the nature of the property ABCD as shown in the plan attached to the plaint as detailed in the heading of the plaint situated at Dhangu Road, Pathankot illegally, forcibly and without due course of law, on the allegations that the property in suit was owned and possessed by Ajit Singh son of Wadhwa Singh who had purchased it from the Managing Offcer, Jalandhar vide deed of conveyance dated 3-3-67 registered on 5-5-67. After the death of Ajit Singh, his estate was inherited by his sons Narindar Singh, Gurmit Singh and Harjinder Singh, daughter Smt. Balwinder Kaur and widow Smt. Parkash Kaur. Smt. Parkash Kaur plaintiff thus inherited 1/5th share in the property in suit. Plaintiff and other heirs of Ajit Singh filed Civil Suit No. 88 of 1987 against Dalip Singh, father of the defendants in respect of the property in suit in the Court of Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Pathankot along with other properties which was decreed on 3-6-1988. Besides the property in suit, Ajit Singh had left properties situated at Village Ugrewal, Batala, Pathankot, etc. Said Dalip Singh in a fraudulent manner in collusion and conspiracy with Arbitrator without any proper authorisation and without delegating the powers to the Arbitrator obtained illegal award on 2-9-95. Said award was challenged in Batala Court. On 30-5-96, at 10 a.m. the defendants wanted to change the nature of the suit property but their attempt was foiled due to the intervention of the respectables of the locality. When the defendants were asked as to why they were trying to change the nature of the property in suit, they replied that they had purchased the suit property from the sons of the plaintiff i.e. Narinder Singh etc. Plaintiff does not concede any sale of the property in suit by Narinder Singh etc. to the defendants. Assuming that Narinder Singh etc. sold the property in suit to the defendants, defendants had no right to change the nature of the suit property which is continuing to be joint. Without getting it partitioned amongst co-sharers, defendants can effect no change in the suit property. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff made an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC read with Section 151, CPC for the grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making any addition or alteration or reconstruction or changing the nature of the property in suit till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) Vide order dated 17-8-96, this prayer was allowed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot and defendants were restrained from raising any further construction on the property in suit or changing its nature in any manner till the disposal of the suit.

(3.) Defendants went in appeal. Vide order dated 19-4-2000, Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur dismissed the appeal. Still not satisfied, Tarsem Singh and Sardul Singh defendants have come up in revision to this Court.