Lalit Kumar (minor) vs Des Raj

Sat Pal, J.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the orders of the courts below. The learned trial court while disposing of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 restrained the defendantrespondents from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit land and also restrained him from raising any construction over it. The said order was, however, reversed by the learned lower appellate court.

It is not disputed that Madan Lal who is alleged to have gifted the suit land in favour of the respondentdefendants has suffered decree in favour of his minor son and the decree was passed on the date prior to the date when the said land is alleged to have been gifted in favour of the respondent defendants. The reasons given by the learned trial court were valid reasons and the lower appellate court was not correct in reversing the finding particularly when the reasons given by the learned trial court were valid reasons. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned appellate court cannot be sustained. Accordingly the petition is allowed and the order passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and the respondentdefendants are restrained from making any further construction on the suit land. The respondents shall, however be at liberty to do any work of plastering inside the constructions already made.

With this order, the petition stands disposed.