G.C.GARG,J. - (1.)PARAMJIT Kaur filed a suit against the defendant, her father, for permanent injunction restraining him from alienating the suit land in any manner without any legal necessity or to suffer any collusive decree on the ground that the defendant had assured her that he will give l/3rd property to her at the time of her marriage. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 16. 2. 1994 decreed the suit and restrained the defendant from alienating l/4th share belonging to the plaintiff or to suffer a collusive decree. Appeal there-against was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by judgment and decree dated 8. 2. 1996. It is against this decree of the Courts below that the present appeal has been preferred.
(2.)LEARNED counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that a daughter has no right to seek an injunction against her father restraining him from alienating the suit properties, which are owned by him. He in support of his submission placed strong reliance on Jujhar v. Giani Tarlok Singh, (1987-1)91 P. L. R. 399 and Sunil Kumar and Anr. v. Ram Parkash, (1988-2)94 P. L. R. 159 (S. C ).
Mr. Kathuria, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has not been able to bring to my notice any fact which may persuade me to take a different view. Learned counsel had ultimately to concede that the land in dispute is owned by the appellant and plaintiff has no share therein either on account of purchase or inheritance. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the suit as framed by the plaintiff-respondent was not competent. She could only file the suit, if at all, after alienation takes place and not for injuncting the owner of the property to effect sale thereof. This appeal is accordingly allowed, judgment and decree under appeal is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs. .