JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.: - This petition assails the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala accepting the appeal of the defendant No.2- respondent No.1 Avtar Kaur (herein referred as, ‘the respondent No.2’) and dismissing the application of the plaintiff- petitioner (herein referred as, ‘the petitioner’) under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. 2. The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering in the possession of the Haveli constructed upon 4 marlas of land comprising of two rooms with gate fixed situated within the lal lakir of village Alamgir as fully described in the head note of the plaint. He is claiming himself to be in un-interrupted and exclusive possession of the said piece of land and alleges that he has constructed two rooms and had installed one gate at the boundary wall. He has planted two trees and uses the said land for storing the shuttering material in the said portion. Earlier his father Amar Singh remained in possession of the suit property and on his death, about 19/20 years ago, he remained in possession of the suit property along with his mother Pritam Kaur. As such he has claimed his possession and sought injunction against the respondents. 3. In reply to the application, the respondents took the plea that previously Swaran Kaur was the owner in possession of the disputed house and said Swaran Kaur had executed an agreement dated 12.8.1995 in favour of Amrik Singh son of Tarlok Singh i.e. respondent No.2 and thereafter, Amrik Singh sold the said house in favour of Avtar Kaur respondent No.1 on 30.10.2008 for total consideration of Rs.2.75 lacs. The respondents have further pleaded that there was no arrangement of water supply and electric connection in the disputed house. However, after the purchase the defendant No.2 got installed his submersible pipe with electric motor of 1.5 HP for supplying of drinking water. Now she is reconstructing the disputed house. Thus, she has sought dismissal of the application for temporary injunction. 4. Arguments heard. Record perused. 5. The suit property measuring about 4 marlas comprising of two rooms is situated within the lal lakir of village Alamgir, District Kapurthala. Both the parties claim right over the suit property. None of them has any document of title in his favour. Thus, she has sought dismissal of the application for temporary injunction. 4. Arguments heard. Record perused. 5. The suit property measuring about 4 marlas comprising of two rooms is situated within the lal lakir of village Alamgir, District Kapurthala. Both the parties claim right over the suit property. None of them has any document of title in his favour. The petitioner claims long possession over the property on the allegations that earlier his father was in possession of the same and thereafter he started residing there along with his father. To the contrary, Avtar Kaur respondent No.1 claims to have derived title from Amrik Singh through a writing dated 30.10.1998. It was further asserted that Amrik Singh had derived title over the said plot on the basis of the writing dated 12.8.1995 from Swaran Kaur. The title of Swaran Kaur over the suit property has not been proved, therefore, Swaran Kaur having no title over the property could not transfer the same that too by way of unregistered document in favour of Amrik Singh. As such, Amrik Singh also could not transfer the same in favour of Avtar Kaur. Any way, both the parties have no title over the suit property. 6. As regards the possession, the court appointed Mr. Narinder Kumar, Advocate to go to the spot in order to find out if any electric meter or bore has been installed as alleged by the respondent. With regard to installing of the electric meter, the report of the Local Commissioner has said nothing. However, it is submitted in his report that a submersible bore has been installed near the entrance of the site in dispute. After going through this report, it is observed that it does not indicate as to which of the parties is in possession of the suit property. It is still to be proved as to who had installed the submersible bore near the entrance of the site in dispute. In such situation it would be in the fitness of things to direct the parties to maintain status quo with regard to possession. Accordingly, this impugned order needs to be reversed to that extent. 7. Resultantly, I accept this petition, set aside the impugned order and direct that both the parties would maintain status quo with regard to possession and construction during the pendency of the suit. --------------