Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the defendants against the order of the lower Appellate Court by which they have been restrained from alienating the suit property reserved for being used as passage and park and for ingress and outgress of the plots in question.
(2.) IN brief, as per the case of the plaintiff, the petitioners -defendants were co -owners in the land measuring 18 Kanal 02 Marlas, comprised in Khasra No. 83/33,q(sic) situated at Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar. Plots were carved out from the entire suit land for residential purposes with common passage and park. The plots were to be sold except for the area which was reserved for passage and park. The plaintiff has alleged that he was in possession of plots no. 53, 54, 55 and 61, purchased by him vide sale deed dated 27.01.1999, in which there is a recital regarding existence of passage and common area for park. He, thus, prayed that the petitioners -defendants be restrained from alienating the common area left for passage and park. The plaintiff also filed application for demarcation which was declined by the Trial Court, but allowed by the lower Appellate Court. The case set up by the petitioners -defendants is that they had also purchased the land from the same earlier owners, but the sale deeds in their favour are silent about the existence of any common area left for common use such as park and passage. The learned lower Appellate Court, after detailed discussion, passed the restraint order from alienation of the areas reserved for being used as passage and park and also for the ingress and outgress of the plots of the plaintiff.
(3.) ALTHOUGH learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued on the merits of the case, but stated that they are not inclined to alienate the suit property. When a specific question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard, it was stated by him that the suit property has already been alienated.;