Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K. GAUBA, J.
Om Prakash - Appellant
Versus
Sonia Dua & Ors. - Respondents
FAO 236 of 2017 & CM No. 19623 of 2017
Decided On : 13-11-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Saxena, Mr. R.K. Bedi, Mr. Rachit Sahney & Mr.Manish Khurana, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P., Adv., Mr. Y.P. Ahuja & Mr. Atul Ahuja, Advs.
The court emphasized the importance of resolving the property dispute through mediation and the application of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in granting ad interim injunction.
Headnote:
Injunction - Property Dispute - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC - [Civil Suit, Injunction, Property Dispute] - [Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC] - The court discussed the dispute over the property and the grant of ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, highlighting the rights and claims of the parties involved and the subsequent referral to mediation.
Fact of the Case:
The civil suit involved a dispute over property ownership and entitlement to re-developed superstructure. The additional district judge granted an ad interim injunction, blocking the builder's responsibilities. The builder appealed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court discussed the property's identification and the conflicting claims of the parties involved. It referred the parties to mediation and disposed of the appeal and pending application.
Issues: Dispute over property ownership, grant of ad interim injunction, and referral to mediation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court focused on the conflicting claims of the parties and the grant of ad interim injunction, ultimately referring the parties to mediation.
Final Decision: The appeal and pending application were disposed of, and the parties were referred to mediation.
ORDER :
1. The order dated 01.05.2017 passed by the additional district judge which was impugned by this appeal was rendered in civil suit (612036/2016) instituted by the first respondent impleading the other respondents as defendants. By the said suit, the first respondent (plaintiff) prayed for decrees of partition, possession and injunction vis-à-vis property described as 2751, Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi -110008. It appears that she (the first respondent/plaintiff) and sixth and seventh respondents herein (they being fifth and sixth defendants in the civil suit) claimed to be the legal heirs of late Mr. Anil Kumar Dua, the subject property forming his estate. The dispute essentially is between the said set of parties on one hand and second to fifth respondents (they being first to fourth defendants in the civil suit) on the other.
2. The appellant herein is a builder, a third party, to whom the responsibility of re-development of super-structure on the above-mentioned plot of land was entrusted by late Mr. Anil Kumar Dua, during his lifetime. It appears the superstructure had been completed and, in terms of the collaboration agreement, the appellant (the builder) was to be entitled to receive ownership of the entire first and second floors along with rear terrace of the newly developed superstructure. The appellant was added as seventh defendant to the fray of parties before the trial court, by an order passed subsequently.
3. The additional district judge, by the impugned order dated 01.05.2017, had granted prayer for ad interim injunction by an application moved by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Given the above-mentioned interim injunction order, the discharge of responsibilities by the appellant (builder) came to be blocked. The appellant was, thus, aggrieved and brought a challenge through the present appeal.
4. On 10.05.2018, a learned single judge of this Court, then in seisin of the matter, passed the following order:-
“It is not in a dispute that the building is constructed on property identified as Municipal No. XVII/2751 in Khasra No. 835/446 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Khampur, in the abadi known as Ranjeet Nagar, New Delhi. The ground floor and the third floor with roof on the front side fell into the share of Late Mr. Anil Kumar Dua. The rear portion of the terrace fell into the share of the appellant /builder. The third floor comprises two residential units. The ground floor is occupied by the family of late Mr. Anil Kumar Du and has been acknowledged as his family. However, a dispute has been raised by respondent nos. 1, 6 and 7, claiming to be the family members of late Mr. Anil Kumar Dua. This claim has been disputed by respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, who are presently in possession of the ground floor; they contend that only they are entitled to the estate of late Mr. Anil Kumar Dua. They also refer to bank records and other documents pertaining to the estate of Late Mr. Anil Kumar Dua, in which they are either the nominees or successors. They contend that their possession of the ground floor and itself establishes that only they are the undisputed family members of late Mr. Anil Kumar Dua. Respondent nos.1, 6 & 7 have opposed to the handing over of the third floor and the front portion of the terrace to R2 to R-5 and any handing over to the latter would prejudice their rights on the ground that they too have a biological link with late Mr. Anil Kumar Dua. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 6 and 7 relies upon Survivor Certificate dated 13.01.2017 which according to them was issued after due proceedings in which respondent nos. 2 to 5 participated. A copy of the same has been handed over to the contesting parties during course of the hearing. Be that as it may, the issue of the respondent nos.1, 6 and 7 is yet to be determined. Insofar respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, the fact that they were living with late Mr. Anil Kumar Dua and survived him as family and his suc
