JUDGMENT 1. - By the impugned order dated 21.12.2011, the learned trial court in the present suit for partition has granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent/plaintiff to the effect that the defendant shall not alienate the suit property further during the pendency of the trial. The reasons assigned by the learned court below are quoted herein below for ready reference:- " izFke n'"V;k ekeyk ds vfLrRo ds fopkj.k ds fy, fdlh i{kdkj }kjk izLrqr lk{; dk dksbZ Hkh Hkkx fopkj ;ksX; gksrk gSA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 rk 5 dh vksj ls tks fy[kr] nks i= uxjikfydk] pq: ds x'gdj fu/kkZj.k jftLVj dh izfr;ka] ikuh] fctyh ds fcy tks is'k fd;s x;s gSa muls izFke n'"V;k fookfnr lEifRr esa izkFkhZ dk Hkh fgLlk o dCtk gksuk n'f"Vxr gksrk gSA dCtk ds fu/kkZj.k dh gn rd mDr fy[kr o i= dks ysVjy ijit ds fy;s iz;qDr fd;s tkus ds ;ksX; n'f"Vxr gksrs gSaA bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr mij m)r uthj Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. AIR 1976 (SC) 807 esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ekxZn'kZu ;ksX; gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd gLrxr izdj.k vpy lEifRr ds foHkktu ls lacaf/kr gS ftlesa dbZ egRoiw.kZ ,oa lkjoku iz'u vUrxZzr gSaA fookfnr lEifRr i{kdkjku dh la;qDr vk; ls [kjhnh xbZ vFkok ugha] dfFkr mi;qZDr nksuksa i= o fy[kr lgh gS vFkok ugha] vkfn ds ckjs esa fofu'p; ewy nkos esa mHk; i{kksa dh lk{; ys[kc) fd;s tkus ds i'pkr~ fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA nkSjkus nkok vizkFkhZx.k fookfnr lEifRr fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fdlh dks vUrfjr ugha djs vkSj mlds Lo:i esa ifjorZu ugha djs] bl laca/k esa izkFkhZ ds i{k esa izFke n'"V;k ekeyk cukuk ik;k tkrk gSA tgak rd vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d dh vksj ls izLrqr mij m)r uthj Sohanlal & Ors. v. Ramjilal & Ors., WLC 2010 Page 45, dk iz'u gS blesa izkjfEHkd fMdzh ds fo:) vihy izLrqr dh xbZ ftlesa lEifRr dh ,d bZdkbZ izfroknh la[;k 7 dks LovftZr izn'kZ&9 esa of.kZr voS/k lEifRr oknh ds i{k esa nku fl) gqbZ] lEifRr dh nksuksa bdkbZ;ka vfoHkkT; gS ftldks rn~uqlkj :ikUrfjr dh xbZA uthj Gambhir Singh & Ors. v. Ramjilal & Ors., WLC 2010 Page 45, dk iz'u gS blesa izkjfEHkd fMdzh ds fo:) vihy izLrqr dh xbZ ftlesa lEifRr dh ,d bZdkbZ izfroknh la[;k 7 dks LovftZr izn'kZ&9 esa of.kZr voS/k lEifRr oknh ds i{k esa nku fl) gqbZ] lEifRr dh nksuksa bdkbZ;ka vfoHkkT; gS ftldks rn~uqlkj :ikUrfjr dh xbZA uthj Gambhir Singh & Ors. v. Narayan Singh & Ors., 1992 CCC 62 (Raj.), esa iwoZ nkos esa oknh us ;g dFku fd;k fd lEifRr foHkkfot gSA nLrkost izfroknh ds ekeys dks lefFkZr djrk gS blfy, izkFkhZ ds i{k esa dksbZ izFke n'"V;k ekeyk cuuk ugha ik;kA uthj (M) G Hastibai v. Ramgopal Singh & Ors., 2009(4) CCC 578, esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd vpy lEifRr esa vf/kdkj dk viathd'r ifjR;kx i= lk{; esa xzkg;~ ugha gksrk gSA uthj Kashinath & Ors. v. Srimad Sudhijndra & Ors., 2010(1) CCC 791 (SC), esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd izFke n'"V;k ekeyk lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgus vUrfje vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ugha tkjh dh tk ldrh gSA uthj Amar Ditta v. Tulsi Ram, 1989 CCC 230 (P&H), esa lgnk; dh lEifRr esa ,M bUVfje bUtsD'ku iq= ds i{k esa tkjh fd;k x;k fd firk lEifRr dks vUrfjr ugha djs] mls vikLr fd;k x;kA Basant Kumar v. Suman Kejriwal & Ors., AIR 2015 (Calcutta) 260, dh uthj esa dzsrk us lEifRr [kjhn djus ds ckn i'Fkd ls viuk uke uxjikfydk esa ntZ djok;kA oknh lfgr lHkh dkW&'ks;jlZ ds vkpj.k ls dHkh Hkh lEifRr dks la;qDr lEifRr ds :i esa ugha ekukA tcfd gLrxr izdj.k esa mDr lHkh uthjsa mij foosfpr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds ifjizs{; esa bl LVst ij vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d dks ykHkkfoUr ugha djrh gS vkSj bu lHkh uthjksa ds izfr iw.kZ lEeku O;Dr fd;k tkrk gS D;ksafd uxjikfydk] pw: ds x'gdj fu/kkZj.k jftLVj 1992&1993 o 1995&1996 esa uke edku ekfyd esa pEikyky dk uke ntZ gS vkSj fctyh ikuh ds fcy Hkh pEikyky ds uke ds gSaA fy[kr fnukad 14-6-1978 o nks i= fnukad 16-12-2006 ,oa fnukad 30-12-2006 bl LVst ij lqlaxr ,oa egRoiw.kZ gS ftlls izFke n'"V;k izkFkhZ ds i{k dks fcy feyuk n'f"Vxr gksrk gSA lqfo/kk dk larqyu o viwf.kZ; {kfr tgka rd lqfo/kk dk larqyu o viwf.kZ; {kfr ds fcUnqvksa dk iz'u gSA tSlk fd mij foosfpr fd;k tk pqdk gS fd ewy okn ds fuLrkj.k] rd fookfnr lEifRr vizkFkhZx.k fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fdlh vU; dks vUrfjr ugha djs vkSj blds Lo:i esa ifjorZu ugha djs] bl ckjs esa izkFkhZ ds i{k esa izFke n'"V;k ekeyk cuuk ik;k tkrk gSA ;fn nkSjku nkok fookfnr lEifRr vUrfjr dj nh tkrh gS vkSj blds Lo:i esa dksbZ ifjorZu dj fn;k tkrk gS rks i{kdkjksa ds e/; eqdnesckth vkSj izdj.k esa iSfpnfx;ka c<+us dh lEHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% ;s nksuksa fcUnq Hkh rn~uqlkj izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;s tkrs gSaA vkns'k ifj.kker% ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZx.k ewy nkos ds fu.kZ; rd fookfnr lEifRr fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls vUrfjr ugha djs vkSj u mlds Lo:i esa dksbZ ifjorZu djsA Sd/- enu xksiky O;kl vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] pq: jktLFkku 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, Mr. Manish Shishodia, submitted that the property in question was self-acquired property of the defendant and, therefore, such restraint could not have been put on the defendant. 3. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the property was joint family property and, therefore, was subjected to partition by the plaintiff and, therefore, the property deserves to be protected during the pendency of the trial. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court in the present misc. appeal, however, trial may be expedited. It is expected of the learned trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of two years from now. 5. The misc. appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties and the court below forthwith.Appeal disposed of. *******