JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By way of Original Miscellaneous Petition No.80 of 2018, applicant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) has prayed for ad-interim injunction order against the non-applicants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendants’) 2. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the case, it may be noticed that this Court vide order dated 26.3.2018, while issuing notices to the defendants in the main suit, also issued notices in the aforesaid application to all the non-applicants-defendants and directed the parties to the lis to maintain status quo nature, possession and revenue entries existing on the date of passing of the order with respect to the suit property comprised in Khata No.11, Khatauni No.12, Khasra Nos.10, 24, 28, 45, 75, 108, 109, 116, 117 (Kitas 9) measuring 31-06 bighas situated in Mauza Bail, Patwar Circle Salogra, Tehsil and District Solan, and land comprised in khata No.14, khatauni No.15, khasra Nos. 1, 4, 6, 13, 14, 17, 22, 27, 30, 31, 33, 40, 50, 51, 60, 63, 65, 67, 69, 74, 76, 79, 87, 88, 91, 92, 95, 104, 106, 125, 126, 139, 142 (kitas 33), measuring 101-09-00 bighas situated in Mauza Bail, Patwar Circle Salogra, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. subject to compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. 3. After passing of aforesaid interim order dated 26.3.2018, defendants filed two applications i.e., (1) OMP No.222 of 2018 under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, Praying therein for rejection of the plaint having been filed by the plaintiff, second i.e., OMP No.223 of 2018 under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC, praying therein for setting aside ex-parte injunction order passed by this Court on 26.3.2018. As far as application bearing No.222 of 2018 is concerned, same is disposed of by this Court vide separate order of the even date, whereas OMP No.223 of 2018 and OMP No.80 of 2018 are being taken up together for adjudication as both the applications relates to interim injunction granting by this Court vide order dated 26.3.2018 issued at the time of issuance of notices in the main suit. 4. 4. Careful perusal of the plaint having been filed by the plaintiff, who is minor son of defendant No.7, reveals that he has filed the civil suit through his next friend/natural guardian i.e., Smt. Deepali Thakur (mother), seeking therein declaration to the effect that suit property, as detailed hereinabove, is joint Hindu family ancestral property and he has got 1/4th share in the same. Plaintiff has also sought declaration to the effect that compromise dated 11.3.2017 entered by defendants No. 1 to 8 collusively in Civil Suit No.107/1 of 2010 and counter claim No.156 of 2007, is illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiff. Apart from above, plaintiff in the suit has also sought declaration to the effect that existing revenue entries qua the suit property are factually and legally incorrect, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and further in the partition proceedings pending before the A.C. 1st Grade, Solan qua the suit property, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share. In addition to aforesaid reliefs, plaintiff has also prayed for decree of permanent perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit property or from transferring or alienating the same. 5. Plaintiff has categorically stated in the application that averments made in the plaint may be read as part and parcel of this application, which would go to show that there exist a prima-facie arguable case in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. He has further stated that there is every likelihood of the suit being decreed in his favour and balance of convenience also lies in his favour. Plaintiff has also stated that if pending decision of the suit ad-interim injunction order is not granted in favour of the plaintiff, the very purpose of filing the suit would be defeated and the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money and denial of injunction would also involve the parties into multiplicity of the litigation. 6. Defendants have filed reply to the main suit as well as application for ad-interim injunction. 6. Defendants have filed reply to the main suit as well as application for ad-interim injunction. Apart from above, defendants also moved an application bearing OMP No.223 of 2018 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, praying therein for setting aside the ex-parte injunction order and as such, with the consent of learned counsel representing the parties, both the applications are being taken up together for final disposal. 7. Briefly the case, as has been projected by the plaintiff in the plaint as well as in the application for adinterim injunction is that the suit land was ancestral property in the hands of late Sh. Khayali Ram and same was owned by Sh. Khayali Ram and his predeceased son Sh. Baldev Singh Thakur to the extent of share each i.e. 41.02 bigha approximately both being coparcener. Plaintiff has averred that though entire land was recorded in the name of late Sh. Khayali Ram, but the same was owned to the extent of share only by him because late Sh. Khayali Ram and late Sh. Baldev Singh i.e. predeceased son of Sh. Khayali Ram and defendant No.7 constituted a coparcenary and as such, plaintiff also acquired right by birth in the ancestral property as coparcener. Plaintiff has further claimed that after the death of late Sh. Baldev Singh Thakur, land measuring 41.02 bigha, out of the suit land i.e. land owned by Sh. Baldev Singh has been inherited by defendant No.7 to the extent of 20.08 bighas and after the death of late Sh. Khayali Ram, Succession with regard to land measuring 41.02 bigha opened and plaintiff also acquired right in the same by birth. 8. Per contra, defendants No. 1 to 5 and 9 to 11 in their written statements as well as reply to the interim application have specifically denied the factum of existence of Joint Hindu Family. They have categorically denied that late Sh. Khayali Ram was Karta of the Hindu Joint Family. Defendants have refuted the claim of the plaintiff that after the death of Sh. Khayali Ram, Sumit Thakur (defendant No.7), who is son of Sh. Baldev Singh i.e., predeceased son of Sh. Khayali Ram, became Karta of the Joint Hindu Family by operation of law. Khayali Ram was Karta of the Hindu Joint Family. Defendants have refuted the claim of the plaintiff that after the death of Sh. Khayali Ram, Sumit Thakur (defendant No.7), who is son of Sh. Baldev Singh i.e., predeceased son of Sh. Khayali Ram, became Karta of the Joint Hindu Family by operation of law. Defendants further averred in the written statement that suit property is not ancestral Joint Hindu Family property, but admittedly there is no assertion specific in nature with regard to source from which property travelled to Khayali Ram. Defendants have also not stated in their written statement that from where Khayali Ram got this property, whereas case of the plaintiff is specific that in family settlement done by Sh. Ram Krishan, suit property came to the hands of Sh. Khayali Ram, which assertion/ submission of plaintiff to certain extent is supported by the revenue record placed on record pertaining to the year 1951-52 onwards. Aforesaid revenue record clearly suggest that Sh. Ram Krishan was owner of the suit property, who in the year, 1953 transferred the property in the name of his sons including Khayali Ram i.e. great grand father of the plaintiff by way of gift. 9. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, learned Senior Counsel representing the plaintiff, while referring to the revenue records, as has been referred hereinabove, made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that revenue record and the record of old litigation, clearly proves on record that origin and character of the suit property is ancestral as it originated from Sh. Bairagi Ram and thereafter came to Sh. Ram Krishan and from Sh. Ram Krishan it came to the hands of Sh. Khayali Ram i.e. great grand father of plaintiff and as such, very character and origin of suit property is joint Hindu family property. While referring to the written statement as well as reply to the application having been filed by the defendants, Mr. Sood, contended that denial with regard to source of property, which came to Sh. Khayali Ram is vague, cryptic and evasive and as such, same is not denial in the eyes of law. Mr. Sood, further contended that joint and undivided family is normal condition of the Hindu Society and Joint Hindu Family consists of all persons lineally descended from common ancestor and Hindu coparcenary is much narrower body than the joint family. Khayali Ram is vague, cryptic and evasive and as such, same is not denial in the eyes of law. Mr. Sood, further contended that joint and undivided family is normal condition of the Hindu Society and Joint Hindu Family consists of all persons lineally descended from common ancestor and Hindu coparcenary is much narrower body than the joint family. It includes only those persons, who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property. He further contended that ancestral property is a species of coparcenary property and If a Hindu inherits property from his father, it becomes ancestral in his hands as regards his son and as such, it cannot be said that plaintiff, who is admittedly great grand son of Sh. Khayali Ram is not entitled to the share in the suit property, which had come to the hands of Sh. Khayali Ram from his father late Sh. Ram Krishan. 10. Mr. Sood, further contended that though defendants have attempted to carve out a case that since property in question travelled to Khayali Ram by way of gift during the life of Sh. Ram Krishan, it ceased to be ancestral, but as per law laid down by this Court in Pohlo Ram and another versus Manohar Lal and others, (1992) 1 ShimLC 41 , which has been otherwise relied upon by the learned counsel representing the defendants, property ceases to be ancestral if acquired by gift except when the gift is made of ancestral property by donor to the person/ persons who would succeed to it by inheritance on his death and the gift amounts to acceleration of succession, that is, the donor completely efaces himself and makes a git of his whole property to the entire body of heirs, who would be entitled to inherit it in the event of his death. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Sood, further contended that there is no evidence led on record by the defendants or there is no allegation or separation or disruption of joint Hindu family in the written statement, rather defendants in their reply to the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and in the applications filed by them under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC and under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, have claimed that in view of Hindu Succession Act, as amended in the year, 2005, whereby Section 6 has been amended, daughters are also treated as coparcener in the ancestral property, which has been not partitioned as per law. Lastly, Mr. Sood, contended that under Hindu Law the moment a son is born he gets share in father’s property and becomes part of coparcenary. His rights accrue to him not on the death of father or inheritance from the father, but the very fact of his birth. He further contended that whenever father gets a property from whatever source from the grandfather or from any other source, be it separated property or not, his son should have a share in that and it will become part of the Joint Hindu family of his son and grandson and other members, who form joint Hindu family with him. He further contended that there are serious arguable points in the case, especially when the rights of the plaintiff, who is minor, have been sacrificed by his father in earlier litigation despite taking the plea that it was joint Hindu family coparcenary property. He further contended that if interim stay is vacated and the defendants are allowed to alienate or sell their share or property is partitioned and disposed of by the defendants, great prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff. 12. To the contrary, Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned counsel representing the defendants argued that suit property, which was in the ownership of Sh. Khayali Ram son of Sh. Ram Krishan, who died on 9.12.1997, is not Joint Hindu family property, which is quite evident from the documents available on record. He contended that as per revenue record placed on record pertaining to the year, 1952-53 onwards, Sh. Ram Krishan, who was owner of the suit property transferred his property in the name of his sons including Khayali Ram i.e. great grandfather of the plaintiff by way of gift. He contended that as per revenue record placed on record pertaining to the year, 1952-53 onwards, Sh. Ram Krishan, who was owner of the suit property transferred his property in the name of his sons including Khayali Ram i.e. great grandfather of the plaintiff by way of gift. While placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Pohlo Ram and another versus Manohar Lal and others, (1992) 1 ShimLC 41 , Mr. Thakur contended that if the property is transferred by gift, it ceases to be ancestral property and as such, present suit having been filed by the plaintiff claiming therein right by birth, deserve dismissal outrightly. Mr. Thakur, further argued that mutation of succession of Sh. Khayali Ram after his death on 9.12.1997 is sanctioned as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, and the mutation to this efect is referred in jamabandi for the year, 1999- 2000 at page No.55 in column No.11 vide mutation number 638, dated 12.9.2006 and at the time of Succession, plaintiff Abeer Singh was not born and as such, he has no cause of action, if any, to file the present suit. Mr. Thakur, further contended that Smt. Damyanti acquired the property to the extent of 31 bigha & 6 biswa being non occupancy tenant of the same, who acquired property under Section 104 of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, by conferment in her favour, which stand duly reflected in the jamabandi for the year, 1973-1974 at Page No.53 of the documents and as such, her property cannot be treated as ancestral or coparcenary property at all. He further contended that property of Hindu widow cannot be treated as a coparcenary property under law. He further contended that Smt. Damyanti after her death is succeeded by her first class legal heirs and mutation to this extent is referred in jamabandi for the year, 2004-05 in column No.12 at page No.57 of the documents vide mutation No.636 as per section 15 of Hindu Succession Act and even at that time plaintiff Abeer Singh was not born and as such, cannot question the succession of Smt. Damyanti. Lastly, Mr. Lastly, Mr. Thakur, contended that at the time of death of Smt. Damyanti, great grandmother of the plaintiff, amendment in Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, has already been brought, whereby female has also been treated as a coparcener at par with the male, hence, even otherwise the question of acquiring any right by male by birth is not correct. Mr. Thakur further contended that dispute with regard to succession of the property of Sh. Khayali Ram and Smt. Damyanti was resolved inter se parties in the Lok Adalat on the basis of instrument of compromise Ex. CA, which cannot be laid challenge in any court of law. He contended that present suit is projected by his father Sh. Sumit Thakur, just to take undue advantage and as such, present suit deserves rejection. Mr. Thakur, contended that plaintiff would not suffer any irreparable loss and injury, as has been stated in the application, in case compromise arrived inter se parties before the Lok Adalat is allowed to be implemented by way of partition, rather plaintiff by way of obtaining ex-parte ad-interim injunction is trying to take undue advantage and as such, application having been filed by the plaintiff or ad-interim injunction be dismissed as ordered vide order dated 26.3.2018 and application for setting aside the ex-parte injunction order may be allowed. 13. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties vis-a-vis pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, this Court is not in agreement with the submissions having been made by learned counsel for the defendants because by way of suit, plaintiff has sought declaration to the effect that suit property is joint Hindu family ancestral property and he has got 1/4th share in the same. Plaintiff has also sought declaration to the effect that compromise dated 11.3.2017 passed by the Lok Adalat is wrong, illegal and without jurisdiction and is not binding upon the plaintiff. If pleadings adduced on record are read juxtaposing each other, factum with regard to plaintiff being great grandson of Sh. Khayali Ram cannot be said to be in dispute, rather claim as put forth by the plaintiff in the plaint is being opposed by the defendants on the ground that since plaintiff was not born at the time of death of his great grandfather i.e., Sh. Khayali Ram cannot be said to be in dispute, rather claim as put forth by the plaintiff in the plaint is being opposed by the defendants on the ground that since plaintiff was not born at the time of death of his great grandfather i.e., Sh. Khayali Ram and great grandmother Damyanti, who died on 9.12.21997 and 20.4.2007 respectively, he has no right to claim any right in the property in question, which question definitely needs to be determined and answered by this Court in the present suit. Similarly, another question raised by the defendants in the written statement as well as reply to the application at hand that succession of Sh. Khayali Ram and Smt. Damyanti was already over at the time of birth of plaintiff and as such, plaintiff has no right to claim his share, is also needs to be determined/answered by this Court in the present suit. 14. This Court while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC having been filed by the defendants, praying therein for rejection of plaint, has held that plaint having been filed by the plaintiff discloses cause of action and as such, he is entitled to file plaint. While arriving/ returning aforesaid findings in application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, this Court drawing strength from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kuldeep Singh Pathania versus Bikram Singh Jaryal, (2017) 5 SCC 345 , wherein it has been categorically held that cause of action is bundle of facts, which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated, has held that plaint discloses cause of action and questions raised by the plaintiff needs to be determined in the main suit. While considering and deciding the application, referred hereinabove, this Court had an occasion to peruse the entire material placed on record by the plaintiff and as such, it cannot be said that plaintiff has no case, rather question whether he has right to claim any right in the property being great grandson of Sh. Khayali Ram and Smt. Damyanti, who died on 9.12.21997 and 20.4.2007 respectively, required to be answered by this Court in the said proceedings. 15. Revenue record adduced on record by the plaintiff suggests that Sh. Khayali Ram and Smt. Damyanti, who died on 9.12.21997 and 20.4.2007 respectively, required to be answered by this Court in the said proceedings. 15. Revenue record adduced on record by the plaintiff suggests that Sh. Ram Krishan by way of gift settled the ancestral property inherited by him from his father Sh. Bairagi Ram in favour of his six sons namely Khayali Ram, Devi Singh, Chain Singh, Madho Ram, Chattar Singh and Maan Singh. As has been noticed hereinabove, it has been specifically stated in the plaint by the plaintiff that very character and nature of the property is ancestral and Sh. Khayali Ram great grandfather of him got the property from his father Ram Krishan in family settlement in April, 1953. Though, factum with regard to property being ancestral has been totally denied by the applicants/defendants, but in written statement there is no specific averments qua the source from which Sh. Khayali Ram got the property in question, meaning thereby, at this juncture, this Court after having carefully perused the revenue record placed on record by the plaintiff has reason to prima-facie infer/conclude that nature of the suit property is ancestral that’s why Khayali Ram got/inherited the same from his father Sh. Ram Kishan, who had got/inherited the same from his father Sh. Bairagi Ram. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shyam Narayan Prasad versus Krishana Prasad & others, (2018) 7 SCC 646 , has held that property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father or father’s father’s father is an ancestral property. Essential feature of ancestral property, according to Mitakshara Law, is that the sons, grandsons and great grandsons of the person, who inherit it, acquire an interest and rights attached to such property at the moment of their birth. Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in Rohit Chauhan vs. Surinder Singh and others, AIR (2013) SC 3525, has held that coparcenary property means the property which consists of ancestral property and a coparcener would mean a person, who shares equally with others in inheritance in the estate of common ancestor. 17. Plea of Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned counsel representing the defendants that since property had come to Sh. 17. Plea of Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned counsel representing the defendants that since property had come to Sh. Khayali Ram by way of gift, the same ceased to be ancestral is not tenable in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in Pohlo Ram case (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that in case property is acquired by gift, it ceases to be ancestral except when the gift is made of ancestral property by the donor to the person/persons who would succeed to it by inheritance on his death and the gift amounts to acceleration of succession, that is, the donor completely e-faces himself and makes a gift of his whole property to the entire body of heirs, who would be entitled to inherit it in the event of his death. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that Sh. Ram Krishan by way of gift made in April, 1953 settled the ancestral property inherited by him from his father Sh. Bairagi Ram in favour of his six sons and as such, completely e-faced himself and made a gift of his whole property to the entire body of heirs, who would have otherwise become entitled to the same after his death. 18. Leaving everything aside, defendants in their written statements have taken all together contrary plea by stating that plea of plaintiff is not tenable in view of Hindu Succession Act, as amended in the year 2005, whereby Section 6 has been amended and the legislation has conferred substantial rights in favour of the daughters. Though, Hon’ble Apex Court in recent judgment while interpreting section 6 in case titled Prakash and others versus Phulavati and others, (2016) 2 SCC 36 , has held that Section 6 of the Act is prospective in its application and by merely taking such plea defendant in one way or other has conceded to the factum of property being ancestral, though, this question would be decided in the main suit on the basis of totality of evidence. 19. As far as settlement inter se defendants including defendants No. 6 to 8, who happened to be parents and guardian of plaintiff before the Lok Adalat is concerned, this Court cannot loose the sight of the fact that plaintiff was not party to the proceedings, which ultimately culminated into the award of Lok Adalat. 19. As far as settlement inter se defendants including defendants No. 6 to 8, who happened to be parents and guardian of plaintiff before the Lok Adalat is concerned, this Court cannot loose the sight of the fact that plaintiff was not party to the proceedings, which ultimately culminated into the award of Lok Adalat. Though, Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides that every award made by the Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to dispute and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award, but this Court cannot loose the sight of the fact that plaintiff herein was not party to the proceedings, which led to passing of award by the Lok Adalat. Plaintiff has specifically laid challenge to the award of Lok Adalat on the ground that defendants No. 6 to 8 entered into illegal compromise with defendants No. 1 to 5 surrendering his rights. He has stated that said compromise jeopardized, sacrificed and wiped out his right in the suit land and compromise arrived inter se parties is totally detrimental to his interest and therefore, is not binding upon him. 20. Careful perusal of averments contained in the plaint, especially in para-4 of the plaint, wherein para-2 of the written statement-cum-counter claim having been filed by defendants No.1 to 3 of that suit (defendants No.6 to 8 in this case) has been reproduced, clearly suggest that defendants No. 6 to 8 despite having taken specific stand that suit land/property was ancestral property in the hands of his great grandfather Sh. Khayali Ram, entered into compromise with defendants No. 1 to 5 and as such, plaintiff who had born by that time has specifically stated in the plaint that defendants No.6 to 8 entered in the illegal and wrong compromise with the applicants/defendants, which has virtually resulted into surrendering of his rights. 21. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that plaintiff has raised arguable question in the suit, which needs to be determined on the basis of totality of evidence to be led on record by the respective parties. Plaintiff has been able to show prima-facie case in his favour and balance of convince also lies in his favour. Plaintiff has been able to show prima-facie case in his favour and balance of convince also lies in his favour. In case, injunction granted vide order dated 26.3.2018 is not made absolute or same is vacated, irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff. To the contrary, no prejudice, if any, would be caused to the defendants in case interim order dated 26.3.2018 is made absolute. 22. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and impugned order dated 26.3.2018, is made absolute till the final disposal of the main suit, reserving liberty to parties to seek modification of the order, if need so arises subsequently. 23. In view of the above, the application having been filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 24. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of these applications alone.