The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a suit for injunction without proof of title, as well as the entitlement to the water tank on the property's roof, based on conflicting claims of title.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Averring that he was the owner of a property situated at 802/1 Ward No. 6, Khasra No. 1151/3 Min, Lal Dora Abadi, Mehrauli, New Delhi ("the suit property"), the respondent instituted CS 8226/2015 (Kanwar Singh Verma v. Vijay Singh Verma), against the appellants before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ("the learned ASCJ"), seeking an injunction, restraining the appellants from obstructing the respondent in keeping and maintaining a water tank at the roof of the suit property, as well as from accessing the roof of the suit property, in connection therewith.

2. According to the averments in the plaint, the respondent was the occupant of the ground floor of the suit property, whereas the appellants, as the defendants in the suit, were in possession of one room on the ground floor, the entire first floor and one room on the second floor, along with roof. The respondent asserted ownership rights over the suit property, claiming to have purchased the suit property through Shakuntala Devi, his mother, who, it was asserted, had purchased the suit property from Mamchand Tanwar, who, in turn, had purchased the suit property from one Nathu Ram through General Power of Attorney (GPA), Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt and registered Will dated 6th August 1980. The respondent averred that, vide registered Sale Deed dated 18th September 2007, the suit property was sold by Shakuntala Devi to the respondent. Consequent to acquiring ownership over the suit property, the plaint averred that the respondent had installed a water pipe in the property and had a cemented water tank installed on the roof over the staircase of the first floor, from where water was supplied to the entire suit property.

3. It was alleged, in the plaint, that Appellant 1 Vijay Singh Verma (Defendant 1 in the suit) had broken the water tank, resulting in disconnection of water supply to the suit property. It was further alleged that the appellants were preventing the respondent from having access to the roof of the suit property. In connection with the damage allegedly caused to the water tank by Appellant 1, the plaint asserted that the respondent had lodged a complaint at P.S. Mehrauli on 26th November 2014.

4. Contesting the suit, the appellants, in their written statement, sought stay of trial in the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on the ground that the subject matter in issue in the suit instituted by the respondent was directly and substantially in issue in Suit No. 8226/2015, instituted prior in point of time by the appellants against the respondent. It was also sought to be contended that the suit was barred by Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

5. The appellants disputed the title of the respondent's mother Shakuntala Devi. They sought to contend that Shakuntala Devi did not have a valid title and could not, therefore, have transferred a valid title to the respondent. For this purpose, it was further contended that the original owner of the suit property, Mamchand Tanwar had merely executed an Agreement to Sell in respect of the suit property, in favour of Shakuntala Devi, without any subsequent Sale Deed having been executed. Mamchand Tanwar had also, it was asserted, executed an irrevocable GPA in favour of Appellant 1. It was further alleged that, while the respondent had not made any payment towards purchase of the suit property, Appellant 1 had paid Rs.20,000/- to Mamchand Tanwar as consideration in that regard. As a holder of an irrevocable GPA, it was contended that Appellant 1 had sold the suit property to Appellant 2, his wife.

6. The following issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge, on 27th March 2017:

"(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form as hit by Section 41(h) of Specific Relief Act? OPD

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed in clause (a)? OPP

(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of permane