- (1.) The application of the Plaintiff-Petitioner for interim injunction seeking to restrain his father Defendant No. 1, from interfering in his possession or from forcibly dispossessing him from House No. 2, Army Officer's Enclave constructed in Khasra No. 2524/214 (2-0), has been dismissed by the Courts below.
(2.) The Plaintiff-Petitioner claims that he is residing in the said house and he being exclusive owner of the same having raised construction on it is entitled to remain in possession and he cannot be dispossessed. The Courts below while determining whether the Plaintiff-Petitioner has got prima facie good case or whether any irreparable loss would be suffered by him in case he is dispossessed and taking into consideration the factor of balance of convenience dismissed the application, prima facie, holding that there is nothing on the record to prove that he is the exclusive owner of the property in dispute regarding his claim that he has raised construction of the house. The Courts below have arrived at conclusion that the Plaintiff-Petitioner was hardly 11 years old and was minor when the construction was raised. The Courts below believed that even if it is presumed that the land on which the house has been constructed was an ancestral property, still the Plaintiff-Petitioner cannot claim exclusive ownership of the property. In view of the prima facie weakness of the case of the Plaintiff-Petitioner regarding his exclusive ownership, the application for interim injunction has been dismissed.
(3.) Counsel for the Plaintiff-Petitioner has submitted that the Plaintiff-Petitioner being in exclusive possession of the property cannot be permitted to be dispossessed and the status quo should be ordered to be maintained during the pendency of the suit.;