Sunita Jain and Another vs Manju Jain

Rajan Gupta, J.—Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.9.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Rohtak, whereby appeal of plaintiff was partly allowed. Observations of trial court in context of gift deed set up by defendants was set aside. Petitioners were, however, restrained from alienating suit property during the pendency of suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there being a valid gift deed in favour of petitioners, restraint of the nature imposed by appellate court was not called for. According to him, property is in their possession. Same was gifted by way of gift deed executed by Jai Chand Jain. Thus, they have full right to deal with the property in the manner they like.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Suit was preferred by Manju Jain (respondent herein). She sought a decree for declaration that property in question was owned by her on the basis of Will dated 28.5.2003. She also sought consequential relief of injunction. In defence, petitioners set up gift deed dated 3.12.2010. Both the documents i.e. the Will and gift deed pertain to same property. Along with suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was moved. Same was dismissed by trial court observing that from the gift deed dated 3.12.2010, it was evident that defendant No. 1 was in actual physical possession of house. It made certain other observations. Aggrieved, appeal was preferred by the plaintiff. Appellate court came to the conclusion that validity of documents could be appreciated only after evidence is led. It partly accepted the prayer of plaintiff and restrained the defendants from alienating suit property during the pendency of suit. Learned counsel has contended that petitioners at present are living in the suit property. Under these circumstances, I find no infirmity with the orders passed by the courts below. Revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.