IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Asha Menon, J.
Kuljeet Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Jhonson Benchamin & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Suit (OS) No. 578 of 2021
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Interim Injunction - Property Dispute - Sale Deed, Possession, and Rights - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India (P) Ltd. 1990 Supp. SCC 727, Seema Arshad Zaheer Vs. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai (2006) 5 SCC 282, Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd.(2) Vs. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656] - The court discussed the principles governing the grant of interim injunction and emphasized the need for the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and possibility of irreparable injury. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their rights to the suit property and dismissed the application for interim relief.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect their alleged rights to a property in New Delhi. They claimed ownership based on a Sale Deed executed in 1998. The defendants contested the claim, presenting documents showing subsequent transfers and possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their rights to the property and dismissed the application for interim relief. The court noted the indeterminate nature of the suit and the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claims.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the plaintiffs' claim to the property and the entitlement to seek interim relief. The court also highlighted the discrepancies in the suit prayers and the lack of clarity in the suit's frame.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and possibility of irreparable injury to warrant interim relief. The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiffs' claim to the property.
Final Decision: The application for interim relief was dismissed, and the case was listed for framing of issues. The court clarified that the order did not express an opinion on the merits of the case to be determined after trial.
JUDGMENT
asha Menon, J. - I.a. 14364/2021 (of plaintiffs u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC for ex-parte ad-interim injunction)
1. This order will dispose of the application filed by the plaintiffs alongwith this suit for possession, permanent injunction and declaratory reliefs with respect to property measuring 1000 sq. yards out of Khasra No.25, Khatha No.18, situated in the aabadi of Village Pochanpur, Extended Lal Dora, New Delhi-110075 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property').
2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs namely Mr. Kuljeet Singh, his mother Ms. Paramjeet Kaur and his brother Mr. Japjeet Singh against four private defendants, defendant No.5 BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, defendant No.6 South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Najafgarh Zone and the defendant No.7 Station House Officer, Police Station-Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi. It may be noted that vide order dated 7th December, 2021, on the statement of Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the defendant No.7 Station House Officer, Police Station-Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi has been deleted from the array of the parties.
3. The case as set out by the plaintiffs is that the suit property had originally belonged to Smt. Champa Bhasin when she had purchased the same on 9th December, 1986 from the original Zamindars. It is claimed that the father of the plaintiffs No.1 & 3 and the husband of the plaintiff No.2, S. Gurnaam Singh, had purchased the suit property from Smt. Champa Bhasin on 8th September, 1998. It is claimed that since then he was enjoying the peaceful possession of the suit property. after S. Gurnaam Singh expired on 31st March, 2021 and after the ensuing lockdown on account of the pandemic, which was lifted in august, 2021, the plaintiff No.1 visited the suit property and came to know that the defendants No.1 to 4 were in possession of the suit property which according to him was completely illegal.
4. It was in these circumstances that notices were issued to the persons found in occupation but since they did not choose to vacate the suit property, the suit has been filed. By way of the instant application, the following prayers have been sought:
'a. To pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, their agents, servants, employees, assignees, representatives etc. refraining them from raising illegal construction, selling, renting, transferring, alienating, changing the structure or creating any third-party interest in any manner whatsoever in respect of the suit property measuring 1000 Sq. yards out of Khasra bearing No.25, Khatha No.18, situated in aabaadi of village Pochanpur, in extended laal dora, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, till the final disposal of the accompanying suit in interest of justice.
b. To pass any or such other order(s) in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in interest of justice.'
5. Mr. Yashpal Singh, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the plaintiffs were the rightful owners of 1000 Sq. yards in Khasra No.25, Khatha No.18, situated in aabadi of Village Pochanpur, in Extended Lal Dora, Dwarka, New Delhi vide the registered General Power of attorney/agreement to Sell dated 8th September, 1998 bearing Registration No.53289 which was executed by Smt. Champa Bhasin in favour of late S. Gurnaam Singh for a total consideration of Rs.75,000/-. It was submitted that if the rights of the plaintiffs were not protected during the pendency of the suit, the defendants no.1 to 4 would create further third party interests in the suit property which would ultimately lead to great prejudice to the plaintiffs and prolonged litigation. It was submitted that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi took no action when the plaintiff No.1 had reported unauthorized construction going on in the suit land. as a result of such inaction, the construction was completed. The learned coun
Seema Arshad Zaheer vs. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai (2006) 5 SCC 282
(1) Interlocutory injunction—Appellate Court can interfere with order of trial court when it is found that discretion has been exercised by trial Court arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or wh....
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession; failure to contest evidence leads to confirmation of ownership and injunction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience in deciding on temporary injunction. The judgment also highlig....
In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff must establish possession of the property to obtain relief, and mere claims of ownership by a defendant do not suffice to cloud the title of the plai....
Defendants, who file a counter claim against the plaintiff, can maintain an application for temporary injunction against the plaintiff. Additionally, the court may injunct the plaintiff to maintain s....
The burden of proof lies with the party making a claim, and non-appearance of a party in court does not negate established evidence.
In a suit for permanent injunction, a plaintiff must establish possession; mere claims of ownership without evidence do not suffice to challenge established rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.