SHAILENDER SINGH Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF -Shailender Singh, being aggrieved by judgment dated 14.05.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the lower appellate Court, has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the said judgment.

(2.) PLAINTIFF -petitioner has filed suit against his father Randhir Singh defendant-respondent alleging that in family settlement in the year 2004, the plaintiff gave 5 acres agricultural land of his share in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property and in lieu thereof, the suit house, which was owned by defendant respondent, was given in exchange to the plaintiff, who became owner in possession thereof. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit for possession by partition of the ancestral land and another house as well as the suit house. During pendency of that suit, family settlement-cum- agreement dated 12.06.2010 was arrived at and according to it, the defendant handed over possession of the suit house to the plaintiff as owner in exchange of the agricultural land measuring 5 acres. However, the defendant later on turned dishonest and did not get the suit house transferred in the name of plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant and his three other sons tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit house and threatened to alienate the same. The plaintiff by filing suit has sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit house. Plaintiff has also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in plaintiff's possession over the suit land and from alienating the same. Temporary injunction to the same effect during pendency of the suit was also claimed by the plaintiff.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court vide order dated 04.02.2013 Annexure P-4 allowed the plaintiff's prayer for temporary injunction and directed both the parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit house. However, appeal against the said order preferred by the defendant has been allowed by learned lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.05.2013 Annexure P-