IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 2371 of 2011(O&M)

Date of Decision: 22.2.2012.

Surinder Kaur & others

--Appellants

Versus

Gursharan Singh and another

--Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present:-

Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the appellants.

***

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J

The suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs against

the defendants was decreed in their favour by the Trial Court vide

judgement dated 19.8.2010. Separate civil appeals were filed by the

defendants against the judgement and vide common impugned judgement

dated 22.2.2011, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court,

Ropar the appeals have been allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs has been

dismissed. Resultantly, the plaintiffs-appellants are in second appeal before

this Court.

Briefly noticed, plaintiff no.1 is the mother of plaintiff no.2 to 4

and was married to defendant no.1 on 4.5.1990. Apparently, the marriage

between the parties did not work well and it was stated that plaintiff no.1

along with her children was turned out of the matrimonial house on

16.7.1998 and since then the plaintiffs had been residing with the father of

plaintiff no.1. It was stated that plaintiff no.1 had filed an application under

Section 125 Cr.P.C and an amount of Rs.1300/- per month had been fixed

towards maintenance allowance. Defendant no.1 was stated to be working

in Sugar Mill, Morinda. Defendant no.2 is the father of defendant no.1 and

RSA No. 2371 of 2011(O&M)

-2-

it was pleaded that there was ancestral property which was to be inherited

by defendant no.1 as per his share in the property. It is pleaded that

plaintiffs no. 2 to 4 have legal right in such property, they being the

daughters and sons of defendant no.1. As the defendants were threatening

to alienate the property as such a suit for permanent injunction had been

instituted.

The defendants contested the suit in terms of filing separate

written statements. Defendant no.1 admitted the factum of marriage with

plaintiff no.1 and the birth of plaintiffs no.2 to 4 was also admitted. It was

denied that the property in dispute was ancestral property and it was stated

that it was defendant no.2, who was the owner in possession of the suit

property. Defendant no.2, father of defendant no.1 also filed a written

statement on identical lines.

Based on the pleadings, the parties went to trial on the

following issues:-

“1.

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction

prayed for?OPP.

2.

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present

form?OPD.

3.

Relief.”

The Trial Court upon having heard respective counsel for the

parties and having scanned the evidence led on record, decreed the suit of

the plaintiffs in their favour for the grant of relief of permanent injunction

restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging and transferring in any

manner the suit property. Defendants no.1 and 2 filed separate civil

appeals against the impugned judgement and decree dated 19.8.2010 passed

by the Trial Court and vide common impugned judgement dated 22.2.2011

RSA No. 2371 of 2011(O&M)

-3-

the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ropar has accepted the

appeals and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

I have heard Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, learned counsel for the

plaintiffs-appellants at length.

It was argued that the Lower Appellate Court has erred in

reversing the well reasoned findings of the Trial Court. Learned counsel

would further contend that the respondents were liable to maintain the

plaintiffs-appellants and the appellants have a right to create a charge over

the property belonging to the respondents.

Upon having given my thoughtful consideration to the

averments made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants and having

minutely perused the judgements of the Trial Court as also the First

Appellate Court, I find that the Trial