221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA PARGAT SINGH JAGIR KAUR AND ORS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Vijay Rana, HARKESH MANUJA By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for dated 15.11.2022 and 22.03.2024 passed by the Courts below, whereby, an application filed at the instance of plaintiff invoking Order 39 Rule prayer for grant of injunction for restraining respondents from alienating specific portion out Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned order has made certain observations with respect to a family defendant Nos.1 and 2 whereas, no such document was produced before the Court. He further dismissing the cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner the respondents of the joint property thereby causing irreparable loss to the plaintiff petitioner. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: PARGAT SINGH Versus JAGIR KAUR AND ORS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Vijay Rana, Advocate for the **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for dated 15.11.2022 and 22.03.2024 passed by the Courts below, whereby, an application filed at the instance of plaintiff invoking Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer for grant of injunction for restraining respondents from alienating specific portion out of the joint property stands dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned order has made certain observations with respect to a family settlement dated defendant Nos.1 and 2 whereas, no such document was produced efore the Court. He further submits that the dismissing the application for interim injunction cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner respondents-defendants would be able to of the joint property thereby causing irreparable loss to the plaintiff IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3217-2024 Date of Decision: January 14, 2025 ........Petitioner ........Respondents HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioner. By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for setting aside the orders dated 15.11.2022 and 22.03.2024 passed by the Courts below, whereby, an application filed at the instance of plaintiff-petitioner 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer for grant of injunction for restraining respondents from alienating the joint property stands dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned order has made certain observations dated 01.12.2009 as pleaded by defendant Nos.1 and 2 whereas, no such document was produced that the Courts went wrong while injunction and the same would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner-plaintiff because would be able to alienate valuable portion of the joint property thereby causing irreparable loss to the plaintiff- 2024 , 2025 By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the the orders dated 15.11.2022 and 22.03.2024 passed by the Courts below, oner 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer for grant of injunction for restraining respondents from alienating Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned order has made certain observations 12.2009 as pleaded by defendant Nos.1 and 2 whereas, no such document was produced went wrong while would plaintiff because alienate valuable portion - TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.01.18 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3217-2024 -2- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. In the present case, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer for restraining respondents- defendants for alienating specific portion out of suit property while alleging that a partition application qua the joint holdings between parties is pending sub judice before the revenue authorities. In view of the settled law, alienation of any specific portion out of the joint property by any co-sharer at best is to be treated as a sale of his share only and the purchaser is not to become entitled for that very specific portion as the same always remains subject to outcome of partition proceedings between the co-sharers; unless it is established on record that the partition had already taken place and the co-sharer/vendor has sold the specific portion and transferred the possession thereof, out of the area falling under his share as per the outcome of such partition proceedings. In view of the aforesaid position of law, no interference is called for with the orders dated 15.11.2022 and 22.03.2024 passed by the Courts below and the same is thus, dismissed. However, it goes without saying that any observation made by Courts below while disposing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit by the trial Court. 14.01.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.01.18 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document