JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This is a revision petition filed against the order dated 10.1.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide which he has allowed the appeal of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 setting aside the order dated 11.5.2000 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Kurukshetra. The Additional Civil Judge vide his order dated 11.5.2000 has dismissed the application of plaintiff-respondent No. l filed under order XXXIX Rule I and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for I ricvity, ‘the Code’) for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from alienating the suit land on the allegation that plaintiff-respondent No. l has got a prima facie case and balance convenience also was in his favour and he would suffer an irreparable loss and injury if the defendant-petitioner was not restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession of the suit land.
2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of the present petition are that plaintiff-respondent No. l filed a civil suit No. 76 of 2000 for declaration that the Will dated 11.12.1999 allegedly executed by one Ghasita Singh is genuine and binding on the parties and he has became owner of the land in dispute. A further prayer was made for consequential relief of permanent injunction. Alongwith the suit and application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code for issuance of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering in his peaceful possession and also from alienating the suit property was filed. It was alleged in the plaint that Ghasita Singh was owner of the land in dispute and the defendant-petitioner was never married to him. It was further alleged that the defendant-petitioner has unlawfully got entered and sanctioned mutation in her name. Further averment made in the plaint is that deceased Ghasita Singh executed a valid will in favour of plaintiff-respondent No. l on 11,12.1999 on account of services rendered by him to the deceased. It is partinent to mention that plaintiff-respondent No. l is the son of brother of Ghasita Singh.
3. The defendant-petitioner filed a detailed written statement controverting the allegation that she never married Ghasita Singh. It was averred that she was legally wedded wife of Ghasita Singh and after his death she has become the owner of the property on that basis natural inhertance and the mutation of the land on that basis was rightly sanctioned in her favour.
4. The Additional Civil Judge reached the conclusion that plaintiff-respondent No. l was not entitled to any injunction and his application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code was dismissed. It was further concluded that there was sufficient evidence on record to show prima facie that the defendant-petitioner was legally wedded wife of Ghasita Singh. Various pieces of documentary evidence were taken into account to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion. The identity card issued by the Election Commission showing the defendant-petitioner to be wife of Ghasita Singh was produced. A saving account of the Canara Bank was also produced showing that Ghasita Singh has nominated her as his nominee. A copy of the ration card where defendant-petitioner was shown as wife of Ghasita Singh was also produced alongwith a voter list to the same effect. However, the Additional District Judge reversed the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge and partly allowed the application directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to alienation of the property. Although, the application for injunction with regard to the property obtained by virtue of a Court decree dated 27.10.1969 was dismissed, yet injunction has been granted in respect of other properties directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to alienation. Those properties are mentioned in para No. 3(a), (b) and (c) of the plaint left by Ghasita Singh deceased. The order of the Additional District Judge reads as under:
“As regard the plea that the appellant that defendant No. l be also restrained from alienating the land, detained in para No. 9(a) and (b) of the plaint, I do not find any prima facie case for grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff-appellant as respondent No. 1 is owner in possession of that land for the last many years and this fact was very much in the knowledge of the appellant.
Thus, in view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed to the effect that the parties to the suit are maintaining status quo with regard to alienation of the property mentioned in para No. 3(a), (b) and (c) of the plaint till the decision of the case but respondent No. 1 cannot be restrained from alienating the land detailed in para No. 9(a) and (b) being owner of the land for the last many years.”
5. I have heard Shri Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Shri B.S. Bedi, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and Shri Pardip Bedi, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondents No. 2 and 3.
6. Shri Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has argued that the impugned order of Additional District Judge suffers from various legal infirmities as no cogent reasons have been given for reversing the well-reasoned order passed by the Additional Civil Judge. According to the learned counsel, the Additional District Judge has failed to take into account the decree dated 27.10.1969 passed in favour of the defendant-petitioner. He has further argued that under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, the Act) sufficient protection is given to the rights of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 as any allienation by the defendant-petitioner would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.
7. Shri B.S. Bedi, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has, on the other hand, submitted that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has also acquired the right of ownership by virtue of Will dated 11.12.1999 and it is doubtful whether the defendant-petitioner could be considered as legally wedded wife of deceased Ghasita Singh. He has further brought to my notice the order passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala on 15.1.2002 whereby the mutation sanctioned in favour of the defendant-petitioner by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade on 30.3.2000 has been set aside in the name of the defendant-petitioner on the basis of natural inheritance.
8. 1 have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. In my considered opinion order passed by the Additional District Judge fails to take into consideration the fact that the defendant-petitioner has been a natural successor to the property left by Ghasita Singh whereas plaintiff-respondent No. 1, is the son of the brother of Ghasita Singh. Moreover, by virtue of various pieces of documentary evidence, it is proved on record that the relationship of the defendant-petitioner and Ghasita Singh was that of wife and husband. Therefore, it is prima facie established that the defendant-petitioner is a natural successor to the property left by Ghasita Singh unless contrary is proved by establishing on record that deceased Ghasita Singh had bequeathed his property in favour of plaintiff-respondent No. l. Moreover, if defendant-petitioner alienate any property during the pendency of the suit, the provision of Section 52 of the Act which incorporates the principle of lis pendens would be sufficient to protect the rights of plaintiff-respondent No. 1.
9. The argument raised by the learned counsel is supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarvinder Singh v. Dalip Singh, 1 (1996)5 S.C.C. 539. In this case, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code by a transferee pendente lite came up for consideration and the Supreme Court has held that the transferees pendente lite were not necessary parties because the defendants in that suit were prohibited by the operation of Section 52 of the Act to deal with the property. The observations of their Lordship and Section 52 of the Act reads as under:
“Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act envisaged that: “During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India….. of any suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to effect the rights of any other party thereto under the decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.”
It would, therefore, be clear that the defendants in the suit were prohibited by operation of Section 52 to deal with the property and could not transfer or otherwise deal with it in any way affecting the rights of the appellant except with the order or authority of the Court. Admittedly, the authority or order of the Court had not been obtained for alienation of those properties. Therefore, the alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens by operation of Section 52. Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit.”
10. Moreover, the decree dated 27.10.1969 would also be relevant to prima facie establish the right of the defendant-petitioner in her capacity as natural heir being wife. Therefore, 1 do not find any justification for the Additional District Judge to upset the well-reasoned order passed by the Additional Civil Judge. It is further pertinent to observe that the Additional District Judge has failed to record any reason much less a cogent reason for setting aside the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge. Therefore, the view taken by the Additional District Judge could not be sustained.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is allowed. The order
passed by the Additional District Judge restraining the defendant-petitioner from alienat
ing the suit property is set aside. The order passed by the Additional Civil Judge is re
stored. However, the direction for expeditious disposal of the suit to the Additional Civil
Judge recorded in para No. 16 by the Additional District Judge is maintained.