(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against orders dated 27.8.2005 and 6.2.2006 vide which an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioner, plaintiff in the suit, restraining the defendants from alienating/mortgaging the suit property or from dispossessing the petitioner from the disputed property was dismissed and an appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sangrur.
(2.) After going through the facts of the case, it is apparent that the plaintiff had executed sale deeds dated 3.1.1995 and 4.1.1995 vide which the suit property was sold by him to the defendants. It is now his case that the said sale deeds were the result of fraud practised on him. However, the facts of the case would show that the sale deeds are registered sale deeds. Learned Counsel for the respondents also states that the entire sale consideration was paid in the presence of the Sub Registrar. The sale deeds recite that possession of the property was handed over to the respondents.
(3.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit through his attorney who is his son Mithu Singh. A reading of the order of the trial Court would show that relationship between the plaintiff and his wife were strained. While the plaintiff was residing at Village Dhandra, his wife and Mithu Singh were residing at Village Badshahpur. Mithu Singh was brought up at Village Badshahpur and his marriage was solemnized there. It is also the case of the respondents that he was not having good relations with Bagh Singh. It is the further case of the defendants that they have been in possession of the suit property right from 1995 onwards but mutation was not sanctioned in their favour because the plaintiff had availed a loan by mortgaging a portion of the disputed property with the Bank. The trial Court has declined the application filed by the plaintiff on the following reasoning: