Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurinder Pal Singh vs Surjit Kaur on 18 September, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO.5120 OF 2012 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2012
Gurinder Pal Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
Surjit Kaur
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Gopal Singh Nahel, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM No.21872-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case Defendant-Gurinder Pal Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 14.01.2011 Annexure P-1 passed by the trial Court and judgment dated 08.08.2012 Annexure P-3 passed by the lower appellate Court, thereby granting temporary injunction to plaintiff-respondent-Sujit Kaur and restraining the plaintiff-petitioner from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property and from alienating the suit property till disposal of the suit.
CR NO.5120 OF 2012 (O&M) -2- Plaintiff-respondent who is mother of the defendant-petitioner was forced to filed suit against the defendant alleging that the defendant by fraud obtained transfer deed dated 06.08.2008 regarding the suit property from the defendant on the pretext of execution of Will in favour of her both sons i.e. plaintiff and another son Pritpal Singh. Plaintiff alleged that she continues to be owner in possession of the suit property but the defendant threatened to dispossess her forcibly therefrom. Accordingly, plaintiff sought declaration and permanent injunction. By filing separate application, the plaintiff claimed temporary injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property till disposal of the suit.
The defendant resisted the suit and the application for temporary injunction and controverted the plaint averments. It was pleaded that the plaintiff voluntarily executed the transfer deed of the suit property in favour of defendant who is now owner in possession thereof.
Both the Courts below have granted temporary injunction to the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the transfer deed, which is registered one, is genuine and valid and was not obtained by fraud. Prima facie the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted at this stage. The transfer deed is dated 06.08.2008 registered on 11.08.2008 and the plaintiff immediately filed suit to challenge the same on 06.08.2009 i.e. just after one year. If the plaintiff had executed transfer deed voluntarily, there was no reason for her to challenge the same just one year after its execution. CR NO.5120 OF 2012 (O&M) -3- Besides it, there is also no reason why the plaintiff would exclude her other son Pritpal Singh from share in the suit property and would convey the entire suit property to the defendant alone. It is not even the case of the defendant that plaintiff has strained relation with her other son Pritpal Singh.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that temporary injunction has been rightly granted to the plaintiff by the Courts below. Discretion exercised by the Courts below in this regard is based on sound judicial principles. The plaintiff has made out all the three necessary ingredients for grant of temporary injunction. Impugned orders of the Courts below do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall have any bearing on merits of the suit.
18th September, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj'
JUDGE