JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J. (Oral):- 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 plaintiffpetitioner 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. 4. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and with his assistance gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. The suit has been filed by son against his father. The father is shown to be resident of Panchkula. The property is situated in Jalandhar. Prima facie, the plaintiff-petitioner has not been able to establish his exclusive ownership over the property in dispute. Moreover, it will be determined on the basis of the evidence whether the property is actually ancestral coparcenary property exclusively owned by the plaintiff-petitioner. The father is shown to be resident of Panchkula. The property is situated in Jalandhar. Prima facie, the plaintiff-petitioner has not been able to establish his exclusive ownership over the property in dispute. Moreover, it will be determined on the basis of the evidence whether the property is actually ancestral coparcenary property exclusively owned by the plaintiff-petitioner. Since it is not, prima facie, established on the record that the aged father, defendant No.1, had made efforts to forcibly evict the plaintiff-petitioner or he is capable of throwing the plaintiff-petitioner from the property in dispute, no ground is made out for interference in the order passed by the Courts below. 6. Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that defendant-respondent be restrained from alienating the property during pendency of the suit. The said relief has neither been claimed in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, nor the same has been adjudicated. In case of any imminent danger of alienation, it will always be open to the plaintiff-petitioner to file an application for interim relief, which may be decided on merits independently. 7. I have also considered the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that status quo will not prejudice the rights of any of the parties but feel that when the plaintiffpetitioner has not been able to establish any imminent threat to his possession, the grant of interim injunction is not warranted. 8. Dismissed. -----------0.K.B.0------------