AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.
Petitioner''s learned counsel submits that by the impugned order, the Additional District Judge, Mansa has set aside the trial Court''s order, whereby the respondents are restrained from alienating the suit land. Relying on Smt. Vimla Devi v. Jang Bahadur, A.I.R. 1977 (Rajasthan) 196, he contends that the lower Appellate Court should not have interfered with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court.
Mr. Chhabra submits that in three suits, which were decided earlier, it was held that Jalu is not adopted by anybody else. He has right to inherit the property of his father along with other cosharers. He submits that these respondentdefendants 1 to 4 are cosharers with defendantrespondents 5 to 9, who are also cosharers with the petitioner. They can alienate the property to the extent of their respective shares, but cannot alienate the specific khasra numbers of the suit land. He further submits that in view of the principle of lis pendis, if these respondents are allowed to alienate any part of the suit land, then any transaction made, would be hit by the said principle. Hence, according to him, learned lower Appellate Court has rightly modified the order of the trial Court.
Learned lower Appellate Court in Para 5 of the impugned order has observed that these respondents are owners of the suit land and no injuction could be granted against the owner. The lower Appellate Court has rightly interfered in the discretionary order passed by the lower Court.
The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. The trial is at its fag end. Revision, being meritless, is hereby dismissed.