(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:16)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:23)(cid:2)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:10)ti(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:26)(cid:4)(cid:27)(cid:10)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:28)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:4)

(cid:4)(cid:18)(cid:10)(cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:29)(cid:16)(cid:21)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:19)

(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:10)(cid:30)(cid:31)

(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:22)ti(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:9)

Reserved on : 26.08.2025 Pronounced on : 09.09.2025 (cid:3)!"(cid:30)(cid:10)(cid:29)#$%(cid:10)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:10)(cid:30)(cid:31)!&’#( ))))))(cid:4)**#++(cid:30)(cid:31)&, -,)

.(cid:30)"(cid:30)+/%&(cid:10)0(cid:10).(cid:30)((cid:30)"/%&(cid:10)(cid:30)(cid:31) (cid:10)!&’#(, ))))))(cid:2)#,*!(cid:31) #(cid:31)&, (cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:14)1(cid:10) (cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:17)2(cid:27)3(cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:2)(cid:3))(cid:10)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:3)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:10).(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:16)

Present: Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No.3 (through VC). ,,,, (cid:2)(cid:10) (cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:10).(cid:23)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:10)(cid:10)(cid:26))(cid:10)

The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2002 passed by Learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide which the civil suit filed by the appellants, was dismissed.

(cid:23)(cid:17)(cid:29)(cid:16)(cid:3)ti(cid:23)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:29)(cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:4)(cid:22)(cid:18)(cid:3)

2. The admitted facts of this case, are that one Mehnga Ram son of Dalip Singh, was owner of land measuring 11 Kanals 14 Marlas as reflected in Jamabandi Ex.P1 for the year 1993,94. He died on 20.04.1993. Appellant No.2 (plaintiff No.2) is wife of Mehnga Ram and appellant No.1 (plaintiff No.1) is daughter of appellant No.2 and Mehnga Ram. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 (defendants No.1 and 2) are sons of appellant No.2 and Mehnga Ram. Undisputedly, after the death of Mehnga Ram on 20.04.1993, mutation of inheritance of his estate was sanctioned in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 (sons) on the basis of Will Ex. D1 dated 11.07.1990. It is also undisputed fact that during the pendency of the civil suit before the learned trial Court, respondents No.1 and 2 sold 6 kanals of land, out of total 11 Kanals 14 Marlas vide sale deed Mark,A/PW6/E dated 07.04.1998 in favour of the respondent No.3 (defendant No.3).

(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:10)ti3(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:10)(cid:4)titi(cid:20)33(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:3)4ti3(cid:4)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:3)

3. The appellants pleaded that they are entitled to inherit 1/4th share each in the estate of Mehnga Ram being his daughter and wife. The alienation of property in favour of respondent No.3 during the pendency of civil suit filed by the appellants is hit by the principles of lis pendens and liable to be ignored qua the rights of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The plaintiffs are entitled for joint possession of ½ share in the suit property.

ti3(cid:20)(cid:4)(cid:29)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:20)(cid:3)ti(cid:12)(cid:17)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:12))(cid:1)(cid:10)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:29)(cid:10)(cid:7)4(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:17)(cid:29)(cid:4)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:3)(cid:10)(cid:17)(cid:12))(cid:1)

(