2013 Supreme(Del) 558
High Court of Delhi
M.L. MEHTA, J.
Hemant Kumar
Versus
Sadhna Shrma & Others
CS(OS) No. 3015 of 2012
Decided on : 15-05-2013.
For the Plaintiff:Amiet Andlay, Arun Kumar Sharma, Advocates.
For the Defendants:D1, Dr. R. Sasan, Advocate.
The doctrine of clean hands and the requirement for a plaintiff to establish prima facie possession and disclose essential facts were central to the court's decision.
Headnote:
Water Rights - Property Dispute - Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2 and 3 - Order XXVI Rule 9 - Sec. 151 - [Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2, 3, Order XXVI Rule 9, Sec. 151] - The court examined the plaintiff's suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions related to water rights and property dispute. The court found the plaintiff's intention questionable and malafide, as he concealed the existence of water tanks in the ground floor premises. The court also noted the plaintiff's failure to establish prima facie possession of the terrace floor, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's applications and vacating the ex parte injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions related to water rights and property dispute. The defendant alleged collusive litigation and non-disclosure of essential facts by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the plaintiff's intention questionable and malafide, as he concealed the existence of water tanks in the ground floor premises. The court also noted the plaintiff's failure to establish prima facie possession of the terrace floor.
Issues: The issues revolved around the plaintiff's right to water supply, possession of the terrace floor, and the defendant's alleged unauthorized occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the plaintiff's concealment of essential facts, failure to establish possession, and the defendant's exclusive possession of the terrace.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's applications and allowed the defendant's application under Order XXXIX Rule 4, vacating the ex parte injunction.
M.L. Mehta, J.
1. This is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 18259/2012 under Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2 and 3 seeking an interim injunction. The plaintiff also filed an Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 for appointment of Local Commissioner to carry out inspection of the suit premises. Vide Order dated October 1, 2010, this Court passed an ex-parte injunction as under: “In view of the arguments urged on behalf of the plaintiff, defendant nos. 1 and 2 are directed to remove any obstruction caused to the plaintiff from accessing of his overhead water tanks and the terrace in the property bearing no. B-54, South Extension Part – II, New Delhi. Defendants no. 1 and 2 are also restrained from in any manner causing any obstruction or stoppage of water supply to the plaintiff from the overhead water tanks situated on the terrace.”
2. Vide the same Order, this Court also appointed Mr. Rohit Nagpal as a Local Commissioners to visit the suit premises and report if the plaintiff’s water supply lines are in any manner being interfered with so as to cause the situation of the plaintiff not receiving any water supply in the ground floor premises. Thereafter, the plaintiff, alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order by the defendant, filed a Contempt Petition No. 108/2012. Meanwhile, the defendant has also filed an I.A. 3480/2103 under Order XXXIX Rule 4, seeking the vacation of the ex-parte injunction dated October 1, 2010. The plaintiff has also filed I.A. 23201/2012 under Sec. 151 seeking permission to have access to the overhead water tanks placed on the terrace floor of the suit premises.
3. The plaintiff submits that he is the lawful owner of the suit premises i.e. the ground floor of the property bearing No. B-54 South Extention Part –I which comprises of three bedrooms, drawing cum dining room, kitchen, lobby, front veranda, open space in the front as well as the backyard, garage and 50% of the terrace rights with the right to use the common stair case and common entrance. The plaintiff submits that he has purchased the ground floor of the suit property from Sh. Ashok Prakash Sharma, jointly along with defendants no. 3 and 4, who are being proceeded as proforma parties. Defendant no. 2, Sh. Vinod Prakash Sharma, is the brother of the said Sh. Ashok Prakash Sharma, and that defendant no. 1 is the wife of defendant no. 2; who resides in the first floor of the said property. The plaintiff submits that the suit property was earlier owned by one Sh. Sugan Chand Sharma, who died intestate on February 16, 1984 leaving behind a widow, daughter and two sons. Subsequently, the widow and the daughter of the deceased relinquished their 2/4th of the undivided share of the said property in favour of the two sons of the deceased.
4. The plaintiff submits that the said Sh. Ashok Prakash Sharma and the defendant no. 2 partitioned the entire suit property amongst them vide a duly registered Partition Deed dated July 7, 2002. And that as per the said Partition Deed, Sh. Ashok Prakash Sharma, became the absolute owner of the ground floor of the suit property comprising of bedrooms, drawing cum dining room, kitchen, lobby, front veranda, open space in the front as well as the backyard, garage and 50% of the terrace rights with the right to use the common stair case and common entrance, which portion was sold to the plaintiff vide a Sale Deed dated July 12, 2010. The plaintiff also submits that pursuant to the purchase of the ground floor and half of the terrace rights on the first floor along with 50% of the indivisible ownership rights of the land underneath the property, the defendant no. 1 and 2 purportedly approached the plaintiff with proposal to re-develop the property and dissuaded the plaintiff from using the ground floor. During which time, the plaintiff submits that he was allowed to freely use the common stair case and other common areas of the property without any obj