SUNITA JAIN Vs. CHANDER KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Pawan Kumar died on 27.1.1987, leaving behind three sons and five daughters. Pavan Kumar, deceased, had suffered a consent decree dated 4.1.86, in favour of Sunita Jain, regarding a part of his property. Similarly, he suffered another consent decree dated 4.1.1986, in favour of his three sons; namely, Dev Raj, Balraj and Hans Raj.

(2.) CHANDER Kanta, Sudershana Kumari, Anantmala and Sushma Jain, the other four daughters, who had been deprived of the property which had been transferred by Pavan Kumar by suffering two consent decrees, filed a suit for declaration with possession to the effect that the two consent decrees suffered by Pavan Kumar, dated 4.1.1986, were illegal, void and ineffective qua their rights. Plaintiff -respondents 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiffs'), along with the suit filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property in dispute during the pendency of the suit. Trial Court as well as the appellant Court granted the temporary injunction as prayed for. Petitioner and other defendants who had benefited by the constant decrees suffered by Pavan Kumar has filed the present revision petition challenging the orders passed by the Courts below.

(3.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard at length.