CHANDU RAM Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER 's learned counsel submits that by the impugned order, the Additional District Judge, Mansa has set aside the trial Court's order, whereby the respondents are restrained from alienating the suit land. Relying on Smt. Vimla Devi v. Jang Bahadur, A.I.R. 1977 (Rajasthan) 196, he contends that the lower Appellate Court should not have interfered with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court.

(2.) MR . Chhabra submits that in three suits, which were decided earlier, it was held that Jalu is not adopted by anybody else. He has right to inherit the property of his father along with other co-sharers. He submits that these respondent-defendants 1 to 4 are co-sharers with defendant-respondents 5 to 9, who are also co-sharers with the petitioner. They can alienate the property to the extent of their respective shares, but cannot alienate the specific khasra numbers of the suit land. He further submits that in view of the principle of lis pendis, if these respondents are allowed to alienate any part of the suit land, then any transaction made, would be hit by the said principle. Hence, according to him, learned lower Appellate Court has rightly modified the order of the trial Court.