NARINDER PAL SINGH Vs. JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Narinder Pal Singh plaintiff-petitioner, challenging the order dated June 2, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshahr and the order dated August 25, 2003, passed by the Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr. By the aforesaid orders, the prayer made by the plaintiff/petitioner for grant of ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC has been declined.

(2.) UDHAM Singh deceased was father of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4. He held the entire land as a co-parcenar. It is asserted by the plaintiff that the property being co-parcenary and Joint Hindu Family property in the hands of Udham Singh, he was not entitled to alienate the same. Udham Singh had suffered three decrees in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein), but the same are bad and as such not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4. The plaintiff then asserts that the defendants have no right to alienate the suit property and to dispossess the plaintiff. Accordingly in the main suit for declaration a prayer for interim injunction was also made.

(3.) THE learned trial Court, on the basis of the material available on record, held that the plaintiff had failed to show any prima facie case in his favour. It was then observed that Udham Singh deceased had five sons, whereas he suffered three consent decrees in favour of his three sons. 1/5th share each had also been transferred way of sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff as well as defendant No. 4. It was also observed that in fact the said sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was without any consideration and as such the claim of the plaintiff from the total property of Udham Singh stood satisfied. It was further observed that the plaintiff had failed to disclose about filing of the earlier suit and as such had not come to the court with clean chest. He had also not disclosed about the factum of the sale by Udham Singh in his favour. The learned trial Court held that the doctrine of lis pendense applies and as per the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff could not claim any irreparable loss. With these observations the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.