Back
1988 Supreme(Del) 324
High Court Of Delhi
RADHEY SHYAM - Appellant
Versus
SUSHMA AHUJA - Respondent
Civil 391 of 1988
Decided On : 11/01/1988
B.N.NAYAR, E.J.Singh, Ramesh Gupta, SRIVASTAV AND CO., V.D.Pahuja
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is limited and cannot be exercised to interfere with the orders of lower courts unless they have acted illegally, with material irregularity, or have failed to exercise their jurisdiction.
Headnote:
DISPLACED PERSONS (COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION) ACT, 1954 - SECTION 2(1) - INTERPRETATION - POSSESSION - TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - PRINCIPLES - APPLICATION - REVISION - JURISDICTION - SCOPE - SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Sushma Ahuja, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, D. P. Wadhwa, seeking to restrain him from interfering in a portion of the property bearing No. 732-33 Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in her occupation. The plaintiff claimed that she was living with her maternal grandmother, Ram Kaur, who was the allottee of the property from the custodian of evacuee property. Ram Kaur died in May 1985, leaving a will bequeathing all her properties to the plaintiff. The defendant, who had purchased the entire property from the legal heirs of the original allottee, claimed that the plaintiff was a trespasser and had no legal right to retain possession of the suit property.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the portion of the property in the plaintiff's possession. The appellate court upheld the trial court's order, directing the plaintiff to close her evidence within three effective hearings. The defendant filed a revision petition in the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the orders of the lower courts.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had a prima facie case to obtain a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the portion of the property in her possession? 2. Whether the courts below erred in exercising their jurisdiction in granting the temporary injunction? 3. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the lower courts under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had a prima facie case to obtain a temporary injunction based on the evidence presented, including the Ration Card showing her residence at the property and the will bequeathing the property to her by her maternal grandmother. 2. The court found that the courts below had exercised their jurisdiction in accordance with the law and had not acted illegally or with material irregularity. 3. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to interfere with the orders of the lower courts under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the conditions for exercising such jurisdiction were not met.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the orders of the lower courts granting the temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
( 1 ) THE defendant by this petition seeks revision of the order dated 14. 7. 1988 of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendant against the order dated 3. 11. 1987 of the learend Sub Judge, by which order the defendant was restrained by means of a temporary injunction from interfering in certain portion of the property bearing No. 732-33 Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in occupation of the plaintiff.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff, now respondent before me, filed on 12 10. 1987 a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant praying that the defendant be restrained from interfering in the portion of the property in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that Jagan Nath, her maternal grandfather, was the allottee of this property from the custodian of evacuee property. Jagan Nath died some time in 1961 leaving behind his widow Ram Kaur and his sons and daughters. Ram Kaur died in May 1985, but she was living alone in the suit property. As she was not keeping good health, she asked her daughter, mother of the plaintiff, to send the plaintiff to live with her. It was in 1975 and since then the plaintiff has been living with Ram Kumar, her maternal grandmother, as her family member. A brother of the plaintiff, stated to be deranged and by the name Parvesh Kumar, is also stated to have been living with Ram Kaur and the plaintiff in the suit property. Then the plaintiff alleged that Ram Kaur left a will dated 30. 1. 1. 1984 whereby she bequeathed all her properties to the plaintiff including her rights in the suit property. The defendant became owner of whole of the property bearing No. 732-33, Faiz Road, and he got possession of various portions of the property and demolished the same with intent to make a new building. The defendant in July 1987 approached the plaintiff and offered her money to hand over the possession of the portion with her. She did not agree. On 7. 10. 1987, some labourers came to demolish the portion of the property in the possession of the plaintiff but on threat made by the plaintiff that she would call the police, they left. On the following day, the defendant visited the property in question and threatened the plaintiff that he would get possession by force. Apprehending that she might be forcibly dispossessed, the plaintiff filed the present suit. She also filed an application under Order 39. Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short the Code ), seeking an ad-interim ex-parte injunction. The learned Sub Judge, it appears, appointed a local commissioner to report if the portion of the property alleged by the plaintiff to be in her possession still existed at the site. The learned Sub- Judge did not grant any ex-parte injunction though he issued notice to the defendantforl5. 10. 1987. After perusing the report of the local commissioner, the learned Sub Judge directed maintenance of status quo regarding possession and construction. This was on 14. 10. 1987. Again, on 15. 10. i987, at the instance of both the parties, another local commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises and to report about the existing situation/ position of the undemolished portion. This report of the second local commissoner is dated 16. 10. 1987, and in this he described that one room marked C-9 in the site plan prepared by the local commissioner and measuring 26 X 13. 5 was intact while the other portions of the property had either been demolished or partially demolished.
( 3 ) THE defendant filed his written statement. He stated that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit and that she neither had any right nor did she possess any portion of the property. The will of Ram Kaur was alleged to be of no effect as she herself had no right or title in suit premises. It was stated that the plaintiff was merely an unlawful squatter in front of the property and that suit was filed mala fide to extract and to fleece money from t
