The main legal point established is that the interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 require a prima facie case, and the court's decision is based on the interpretation of title documents to determine ownership rights.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. - The present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], has been filed seeking the following interim reliefs:

"PRAYER

1. Pass an interim order directing the Respondents to not obstruct and create any hindrance in the use of the Terrace over the Third Floor of the Property No. J-1878, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 by the Petitioners and their family members and domestic helpers in any manner whatsoever;

2. Pass an interim order directing the Respondents to not initiate any construction on the terrace above the Third Floor of the Property No. J-1878, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019;

3. Pass an interim order for directing the Respondents to maintain status quo of the Third Floor as well as the Terrace as was prior to the sale deed dated July 7, 2021; and

4. Pass an interim order for directing the Respondents to provide keys to the terrace and not to interfere the usage of terrace by the Petitioner; and

5. Restrain the Respondent No. 1 from leave the country with the documents, as mentioned in Paragraph 44 Ground (h) of this Petition, in her possession;

6. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to produce the essential documents before this Hon'ble Court;

7. Allow the Petitioners to inspect the essential documents in possession of the Respondent No. 1; and

8. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice."

2. The factual background is as follows:

2.1. The Property No. J-1878, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 (in short 'suit property') was leased by the L&DO in the name of Shri Amalendu Sengupta vide Deed dated 25th January, 1977. He executed a Will dated 4th July, 2000, bequeathing the suit property amongst his three children, i.e., Mrs. Monimala Biswas, Mr. Jagannath Sengupta, and Mrs. Seema Dasgupta (Respondent No. 1). On 2nd January, 2003, Shri Amalendu Sengupta passed away. His children entered into a Memorandum of Family Settlement ('MoFS') on 22nd December, 2004, agreeing to divide the suit property in terms of the afore-said Will.

2.2. The suit property was converted from lease-hold to free-hold by way of a conveyance deed dated 23rd May, 2007, executed by the L&DO in the joint names of the three children of Late Shri Amalendu Sengupta.

2.3. On 4th July, 2008, the three siblings entered into a Collaboration Agreement ('CA') with a builder for reconstruction of the suit property with separate floors; after reconstruction, in 2009, they moved in with their family members.

2.4. Later, on 19th January, 2020, Shri Jagannath Sengupta expired leaving behind three legal heirs: his wife, namely, Smt. Nandita Sengupta (Petitioner No. 1) and two daughters, namely, Ms. Diya Mehta (Respondent No. 4) and Ms. Amrita Sen Sharma (Respondent No. 5).

2.5. The dispute, relating to the filing of the present petition started brewing with the Respondent No. 1 issuing a legal notice dated 7th April, 2021 to Mrs. Monimala Biswas and in the name of deceased- Late Shri Jagannath Sengupta. In the said notice Respondent No. 1 claimed exclusive terrace rights of the suit property.

2.6. On 7th July, 2021, the Respondent No. 1 sold the third floor with terrace of the suit property to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2.7. When Petitioners first came to know about the above sale, a legal notice invoking arbitration under Clause 21 of the MoFS was issued to the Respondents on 26th July, 2021.

2.8. The Respondent Nos. 1-3 changed the lock of the terrace door thereby causing obstruction and hindrance in the Petitioners' free use and access to the terrace.

2.9. In this background, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking interims reliefs as extracted above.

Petitioner's contentions

3. Mr. Prashanto Sen, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits as follows:

3.1. The claim of exclusive terrace rights by Respondent No. 1 is in complete contradiction and violation of the terms of the MoFS dated 22nd December, 2004. Respondent No. 1 taking ad