SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
VIRENDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
MEENU HUDDA AND ANR – Respondent
CR 2906 2019



117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-2906-2019 (O&M)

Date of decision: 27.10.2022

Virender Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

Meenu Hudda and another

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Sonu Gill, Advocate for

Mr. D.P.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent. The

respondent-wife has filed a suit that her husband (petitioner herein) be

restrained from dispossessing her from the suit land or from alienating

the suit property, in any manner.

It appears that both husband and the wife are the joint

owners. The First Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal has

observed as under:-

“13. Admittedly, from the revenue

record it is revealed that defendant is owner in

possession of suit property, but it cannot be lost sight

of that plaintiffs have right to be maintained from the

suit property as their right of maintenance is first

charge over the suit property.

In these

circumstances, the impugned order is modified with a

direction that if defendant alienates the suit property

then he will seek the permission of the court and will

disclose the name of perspective vendee to the court

to whom he wants to sell the suit property by filing

particulars in the case file and notice to such vendee

would be issued and the vendee would be apprised by

mentioning in the sale deed that the sale of the suit

property is subject to the first charge of maintenance

of plaintiffs. With this point of view the impugned

order is modified.”

REKHA SIHAG

2022.10.28 10:24

I attest to the accuracy of this

document

Chandigarh

CR-2906-2019 (O&M)

2

It is evident that the injunction granted by the trial court has

been modified and the defendant has been permitted to alienate the

property, with prior permission of the court. In such circumstances, no

ground to interfere is made out.

Hence, dismissed.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

27.10.2022

(ANIL KSHETARPAL)

rekha

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No

Whether reportable :

Yes/No

REKHA SIHAG

2022.10.28 10:24

I attest to the accuracy of this

document

Chandigarh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top