SONKI Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court whereby the application filed by the petitioners for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property was dismissed, while accepting the appeal filed by the respondents.

(2.) THE plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction and also moved an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendants from alienating any part of the land as detailed in the said application situated in village Buhavi, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. Said injunction was claimed on the allegation that the plaintiffs are in cultivating possessing of the disputed land for the last more than 100 years and that earlier the plaintiffs have also filed a suit for declaration for their ownership by way of adverse possession. Another suit was filed when the defendants unlawfully and illegally started cutting the trees on the disputed land. Since it is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants have now threatening to alienate the disputed land, therefore, the present suit for injunction was filed. The learned Trial Court granted injunction as the plaintiffs were found to be in possession of the suit land and that the plaintiffs are claiming title on the basis of adverse possession but the first Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to injunction of the nature sought for as true owner cannot be restrained from alienating the property owned by him.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court. The plaintiffs have claimed injunction on the basis of their plea that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession and in the alternative they have acquired ownership rights being the occupancy tenants. In view of the said pleadings, it is apparent that the defendants are recorded as owners of the suit property but on the strength of the possession, the plaintiffs are asking for the decree. Therefore, as a true owner, the defendants cannot be restrained from alienating the suit property. Any sale effected during the pendency of the suit shall be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and therefore, will not affect the rights of the plaintiffs. It is not shown that what irreparable loss or injury would be caused to the plaintiffs, if injunction sought for is not granted. The argument that the plaintiffs shall be dispossessed after sale is not even the prayer made in the application seeking injunction. The plaintiff has claimed injunction against alienation only. The application is misconceived and even not pleaded. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order of the learned First Appellate Court which may warrant interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.