Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sachin Khurana vs Jatinder Khurana And Ors on 3 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
CR-7823-2025
Date of Decision: 03.11.2025
SACHIN KHURANA . . . . Petitioner
Vs.
Jitender Khurana and others
. . . . Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Present : - Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
The petitioner is the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. CS-404-2022 titled Sachin Khurana v. Jitender Kumar Khurana and others, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat. In the said suit, his application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction was allowed on 08.08.2023 (Annexure P13). However, on appeal filed by defendant No. 5 - Suresh Kumar (respondent No. 4 herein), the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, vide order dated 17.09.2025 (Annexure P-14), set aside the trial Court's order. It is this appellate order, which is under challenge in the present revision.
2. The undisputed facts reveal that plaintiff-Sachin Khurana and defendants No. 1 and 3 are real brothers, all being sons of defendant No. 2 - Smt. Kanta Khurana. The dispute pertains to a residential plot measuring 209 sq. metres situated in TDI City, Sonepat, purchased by Smt. Kanta Khurana vide sale deed dated 22.11.2011 from one Rajiv Sachdeva for a consideration of ₹ 23,70,000/-, paid through cheques. She thereby became the exclusive owner of the property.
3. The plaintiff's case was that the plot, though purchased in the name of his mother, was actually acquired from the funds of the 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 02:36:07 ::: CR-7823-2025 2025:PHHC: 151099 proprietary concern M/s H. Dharamvir, originally owned by his father - Sh. Dharamvir Khurana. Upon the father's demise, the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3, as his legal heirs, allegedly succeeded to the business and its assets. He also challenged the release deed dated 03.08.2022 executed by his mother in favour of defendant No. 1, followed by sale deed dated 08.09.2022 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 5. On these premises, he sought declaration, possession, and consequential reliefs of mandatory and permanent injunction.
4. The learned First Appellate Court, while reversing the trial Court's order of injunction, recorded finding that defendant No. 2 was the sole proprietor of M/s H. Dharamvir since 2001 and had purchased the property in her own right. The plea that the property was acquired from common family funds was found unsubstantiated. It was further noted that the plaintiff never questioned the proprietary status of his mother during her ownership or at the time of acquisition. The Court also found indications of collusion between family members in the litigation against the purchaser - defendant No. 5, who had acquired the property for ₹ 37,50,000/-. Nevertheless, the appellate Court observed that the interests of the parties stood adequately safeguarded under the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882) and directed that if defendant No. 5 enters into any further transaction, he shall inform the trial Court within one month.
5. The contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the property was purchased from the funds of the deceased father's proprietary concern and that the subject matter deserves protection during pendency of the suit, does not hold merit. The ownership of Smt. Kanta Khurana as sole proprietor since 2001 and her valid purchase in 2011 stand prima facie established on record. No material has been shown to rebut these findings, or to prima facie indicate that the property was joint family or business property.
Page 2 of 3 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 02:36:08 ::: CR-7823-2025 2025:PHHC: 151099
6. Once the appellate Court has found that the purchaser - defendant No. 5 - is a transferee for value, the equitable protection under lis pendens sufficiently preserves the petitioner's contingent interest, if any, without the necessity of continuing an interim injunction. The discretionary relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC cannot be invoked when the applicant fails to establish a prima facie case or balance of convenience in his favour.
7. The findings of fact recorded by the learned First Appellate Court are neither perverse nor illegal and warrant no interference in supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, the present revision petition is found devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
03.11.2025 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
Page 3 of 3
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2025 02:36:08 :::