A registered cancellation deed of a Will, unchallenged, holds precedence in ownership claims, and a prima facie case is essential for injunctions under Order 39.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Additional District Judge, Jind, in Civil Misc. Appeal no.18 of 2024 instituted on 05.06.2024 vide which the appeal filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against the order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Safidon, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC in Civil Suit no.894 of 2018, has been accepted and the defendants have been restrained from alienating the suit land.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the petitioners are the daughters of Satnarain and a suit was filed by respondent no.1, who is the grand son of Satnarain, on 13.11.2018 for declaration to the effect that the said Rajesh and the proforma defendant- Ankit were the owners in possession of ½ share each in agriculture land total measuring 91 kanals 1 marla situated in revenue estate of Village Ratta Khera, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. It is submitted that the said suit was filed on the basis of Will dated 20.07.2007, which has been stated to be executed by Satnarain in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff and that in the said plaint, no challenge was made to the registered cancellation deed no.241 dated 31.12.2012 vide which the said Will had been cancelled. It is further submitted that in the written statement which was filed by the present petitioners, specific reference to the said cancellation deed, which was of the year 2012, had been made but no amendment till date has been sought by the plaintiff in the said suit to challenge the said cancellation deed. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioners-Satnarain had died in the year 2018 and for a period of more than 5 years, the said Satnarain had never questioned the said cancellation deed dated 31.12.2012 nor had executed any subsequent Will in favour of any party, much less, respondent no.1-plaintiff.

3. It is submitted that mutation no.1459 dated 12.09.2018 with respect to the estate of Satnarain was sanctioned in the presence of all the parties, in favour of the petitioners to the extent of half share. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the said mutation, respondent no.1-plaintiff along with his mother Rajbala had executed a registered sale deed dated 22.10.2018 selling a part of the suit land in favour of one Sushil Kumar and as per the said sale deed, it is respondent no.1-plaintiff Rajesh, who had received huge amount of sale consideration through cheques. It is submitted that after sanctioning of the mutation and after having executed the said sale deed, respondent no.1-plaintiff had filed the present suit for declaration in which no challenge was made to the cancellation deed of the year 2012 and that the trial Court had vide order dated 31.05.2024 dismissed the application filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC after observing that the conduct of the plaintiff does not entitle him for grant of any injunction.

4. It is submitted that the Additional District Judge vide impugned order dated 18.09.2024 has set aside the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court and has allowed the application filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff on surmises and conjectures; primarily by stating that the signatures on the cancellation deed are different from the signatures on Will dated 20.07.2007, without there being any handwriting expert report on record and without there being any pleading on the