In a suit involving joint ancestral property, where revenue records show the property is unpartitioned, a status quo order on possession and alienation is appropriate until the rights of the parties are determined through evidence at trial.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant No.1 seeking setÝng aside of the order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the status quo order dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure P-6), has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -

27.03.2018: Plaintiff/respondent had filed Civil Suit dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure P-2) seeking declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property as described in the plaint. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff/respondent has also filed application dated 27.03.2018 (Annexure P-3) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for grant of ad-interim injunction.

20.08.2022: Petitioner had filed written statement dated 20.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) to the civil suit.

20.08.2022: Petitioner had also filed reply dated 20.08.2022 (Annexure P-5) to the application of the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

24.08.2023: Vide impugned order dated 24.08.2023 (Annexure P-6), the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna had disposed of the above said application of the respondent while directing that “……the parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding possession as well as alienation of the suit property as detailed in the head note of the plaint during the pendency of the suit in the interest of justice.”

13.09.2023: The said order dated 24.08.2023 was challenged by the petitioner by way of Civil Appeal dated 13.09.2023 (Annexure P-7) before the learned District Judge, Ludhiana.

28.08.2025: Vide impugned order dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure P-1), the above said appeal filed by the petitioner had been dismissed; thereby afÏrming status quo order.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare reading of the Civil Suit (Annexure P-2) shows that plaintiff has made prayer for restraining the petitioner and other defendants from “…… interfering in peaceful possession or any sale, alienation, gift or creating third party charge on the joint ancestral property in possession and being managed by the Plaintiff bearing the Plaintiff bearing khewat No. 34, 35, 39,41, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, Khatauni No. 36, 37, 41, 43, 101,103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 105, Rectangle Nos. 38, Killa No. 2/1, 2/2, 9/1, 12, 9/2, Rect. No. 24, Killa No. 16, 25, Rect. No.39, Killa No. 4/2, 4/1/2, 5, 6, 7/1, 13/2 14, 17/1, 18/1, 23/2, Rect. No. 41 Killa No. 2/2, 3, 4, 9/1, 12/2, 13/1, Rect No. 39, Killa No. 17/2/2, 15/1, 16/2, 17/2/1, 24, 25/1, 25/3, 15/3, 16/1, 25/2, Rect. No. 38 Killa No. 11/2, 26/1, Rect. No. 24, Killa No. 15/2, Rect No. 25, Killa No. 28, 21, Rect No. 38, killa No. 1, 10, 11/1, Rect. No. 24, Killa No. 14, 17, 23, 24, Rect. No. 39, Killa No. 3, 4/1/1, 7/2, 8, 9, 12, 13/, 18/2, 19, 21, 22, 23/1, Rect. No. 41, Killa no. 1, 2/1, 9/2, 10, 12/1 situated in village Jaspalon, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana in view of the Family Settlement dated 21.08.2010 according to which movable or immovable Family Property as and when required shall be divided equally in four shares …….; AND Suit for declaration that as per Family Settlement, if any member of the Family who wants to dispose off his / her share in the joint property, shall sell its share only to the member of the family at the rates it was purchased by their father, after actual partition by meets and bounds; AND ………”

It is submitted that from the above, it is clear that plaintiff has made unexecutable prayers which cannot be granted.

It is further submitted that the impugned orders are unsustainable as, petitioner being co-sharer in the joint property cannot be restrained from alienating the suit property to the extent of his share. Learned counsel points out that in the revenue record, petitioner is duly shown to be a co-owner. Ld. Counsel refers