JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J (Oral) :- CM No.30122-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal. 2. Defendant-Surinder Pal has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by grant of temporary injunction by both the Courts below in favour of plaintiffs/respondents. It is unfortunate litigation among family members/close relatives. 3. Respondents/plaintiffs are sons of two sisters of the defendant-petitioner. Jawahar Singh father of the petitioner as well as father of mothers of respondents, was owner in possession of the suit property. Case of the plaintiffs is that Jawahar Singh left behind widow Shanti Devi, three sons and five daughters, who being class-I heirs inherited the suit land in equal shares. Mothers of plaintiffs have gifted 50 square yards area each to the plaintiffs, who claimed themselves to be owners in possession thereof, but the defendant started obstructing the construction work of the plaintiffs on the said plots. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in construction being raised by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid plots. Temporary injunction to the same effect during pendency of the suit was also claimed by the plaintiffs by moving separate application. 4. Defendant while admitting that the suit property was owned by his father Jawahar Singh and also while admitting the relationship between the parties, controverted the other allegations of the plaintiffs and inter alia pleaded that Jawahar Singh died on 11.12.1965. He bequeathed the suit property in favour of defendant and others vide Will dated 01.04.1964 and accordingly the defendant constructed house on his share in the suit property and is in possession thereof for the last 35 years. Plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit land. They want to raise construction in courtyard of the plaintiffs. It was also pleaded that defendant’s mother Shanti Devi executed family settlement dated 23.04.2003. Various other pleas were also raised 5. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala vide impugned order dated 02.03.2010 allowed plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred against the said order by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide impugned judgment dated 04.09.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 7. Appeal preferred against the said order by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide impugned judgment dated 04.09.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of Will dated 01.04.1964 executed by petitioner’s father Jawahar Singh and in view of family settlement effected amongst defendant-petitioner and his two brothers and their mother and also signed by one sister, defendant-petitioner and his two brothers became exclusive owners in possession of their respective shares in the suit property and plaintiffs have no right, title or interest therein. 8. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner on pointed inquiry could not refer to any pleading to the effect that there was family settlement amongst the petitioner and his two brothers and their mother and the said settlement was also signed by one sister of the petitioner. On the contrary, in the impugned order of the trial Court, there is reference to alleged family settlement executed by petitioner’s mother Shanti Devi. There is no reference about any other person being party or signatory to the said family settlement. Consequently, said family settlement has no adverse bearing against the plaintiffs or their mothers. Moreover, as conceded by counsel for the petitioner, the said family settlement has not been signed by mother of either of the plaintiffs. For this reason as well, the said settlement can have no bearing against the plaintiffs or their mothers. 9. As regards Will dated 01.04.1964 set up by the petitioner, it has to be noticed that petitioner’s father died on 11.12.1965 as pleaded by the petitioner himself. The present suit was filed on 12.08.2009. During this long period of almost 44 years, the alleged Will never saw the light of the day. If there had been any such Will, the defendant and his brothers in whose favour the suit property was allegedly bequeathed, would have, immediately after the death of their father, asserted their title over the suit property to the exclusion of their sisters on the basis of the Will. However, they did not do so for almost 44 years. 10. Courts below have exercised their judicial discretion in the matter of temporary injunction. However, they did not do so for almost 44 years. 10. Courts below have exercised their judicial discretion in the matter of temporary injunction. The same can’t be interfered within exercise of revisional jurisdiction because the same is not shown to be perverse or illegal or suffering from any jurisdictional error. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that two views are reasonably possible, even then the concurrent view taken by both the Courts below cannot be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. 12. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. -------------------------