KARTAR KAUR Vs. SARDUL SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed against the order dated 10.1.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide which he has allowed the appeal of plaintiff -respondent No. 1 setting aside the order dated 11.5.2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kurukshetra. The Additional Civil Judge vide his order dated 11.5.2000 has dismissed the application of plaintiff -respondent No. l filed under order XXXIX Rule I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for I ricvity, 'the Code') for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant -petitioner from alienating the suit land on the allegation that plaintiff -respondent No. l has got a prima facie case and balance convenience also was in his favour and he would suffer an irreparable loss and injury if the defendant -petitioner was not restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession of the suit land.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case which led to the filing of the present petition are that plaintiff -respondent No. l filed a civil suit No. 76 of 2000 for declaration that the Will dated 11.12.1999 allegedly executed by one Ghasita Singh is genuine and binding on the parties and he has became owner of the land in dispute. A further prayer was made for consequential relief of permanent injunction. Alongwith the suit and application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for issuance of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant -petitioner from interfering in his peaceful possession and also from alienating the suit property was filed. It was alleged in the plaint that Ghasita Singh was owner of the land in dispute and the defendant -petitioner was never married to him. It was further alleged that the defendant -petitioner has unlawfully got entered and sanctioned mutation in her name. Further averment made in the plaint is that deceased Ghasita Singh executed a valid will in favour of plaintiff -respondent No. l on 11,12.1999 on account of services rendered by him to the deceased. It is pertinent to mention that plaintiff -respondent No. l is the son of brother of Ghasita Singh.

(3.) THE Additional Civil Judge reached the conclusion that plaintiff -respondent No. l was not entitled to any injunction and his application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code was dismissed. It was further concluded that there was sufficient evidence on record to show prima facie that the defendant -petitioner was legally wedded wife of Ghasita Singh. Various pieces of documentary evidence were taken into account to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. The identity card issued by the Election Commission showing the defendant -petitioner to be wife of Ghasita Singh was produced. A saving account of the Canara Bank was also produced showing that Ghasita Singh has nominated her as his nominee. A copy of the ration card where defendant -petitioner was shown as wife of Ghasita Singh was also produced alongwith a voter list to the same effect. However, the Additional District Judge reversed the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and partly allowed the application directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to alienation of the property. Although, the application for injunction with regard to the property obtained by virtue of a Court decree dated 27.10.1969 was dismissed, yet injunction has been granted in respect of other properties directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to alienation. Those properties are mentioned in para No. 3(a), (b) and (c) of the plaint left by Ghasita Singh deceased. The order of the Additional District Judge reads as under: