SOMBIR Vs. SHEO DAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute relates to the property of Har Kaur widow of Shai Ram. Petitioners (plaintiffs in the suit) are claiming property on the basis of Will alleged to have been executed by Har Kaur in their favour, whereas respondent (defendant in the suit) is not admitting the Will. According to the respondent, the Will is a forged and fictitious document and in the alternative, he has stated that the Will was cancelled by a registered document. During the pendency of this suit, the petitioners sought ad-interim injunction for restraining the respondent from interfering in their possession and also for restraining the respondent from alienating the property. Both the Courts below allowed the application in part, i.e. restrained the respondent from alienating the property. However, the other prayer was declined on the ground that the petitioners have not been able to prove that they are in exclusive possession of the property. The order declining this prayer is being challenged in the present revision petition.

(2.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length, I am of the view that there is no merit in this revision petition. Petitioners are claiming through Har Kaur on the basis of Will. They have yet to prove the Will. In the revenue records, Har Kaur at the time of her death, was shown to be in possession of 1/4th share as a co-sharer in joint land. She was never shown to be in exclusive possession of the land which is the subject-matter of the suit. Petitioners who claim themselves through Har Kaur cannot have a better right than the one which Har Kaur had during her life time. As already noticed, Har Kaur had only 1/4th share as a co-sharer in joint land and there being no document to show that exclusive possession either of Har Kaur or of the petitioners, the Courts below rightly refused to grant injunction in favour of the petitioners for restraining the respondent from interfering in their possession. Consequently, revision petition is dismissed. No costs.