Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 2231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Dr Manjula Pathak Krippendorf – Appellant
Versus
Preeti Dawra & Anr. – Respondents
RSA 97 of 2019
Decided On : 28-03-2023
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Property Disputes
Headnote
Injunction - Possession of Property - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Anathula Sudhakar Vs P Buchi Reddy - T.V. Ramakrishna Reddy Vs M. Mallappa & Anr - Dr Manjula Krippendorf Pathak Vs Vijay Dixit & Ors - Jagan Nath Chauhan Vs S C Nanda & Anr - R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple And Another - Possession of Property - Maintainability of Suit for Injunction without seeking Declaration - Deprivation of Opportunity to Lead Evidence
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed possession of a property and sought permanent injunction against the defendant. The defendant challenged the title of the plaintiffs and raised objections to the suit. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed, contending deprivation of opportunity to lead evidence and maintainability of the suit for injunction without seeking declaration.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of possession but held against them on the maintainability of the suit for injunction without seeking declaration. The Court also held in favor of the defendant on the issue of deprivation of opportunity to lead evidence.
Issues: Possession of Property, Maintainability of Suit for Injunction without seeking Declaration, Deprivation of Opportunity to Lead Evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that a suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff. The Court also found that the defendant was deprived of the opportunity to lead evidence, which was a substantial question of law.
Final Decision: The judgment & decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside. The Appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Ms. Tara Narula, Advocate (Amicus Curiae for petitioner in person), Mr. S. Debabrata Reddy and Shivangi Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Sajan Narain, Advocate for R-1 and R-2.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. This is a Second Appeal filed by the appellant/defendant against the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court in RCA No. 41/17 titled as "Dr Manjula Pathak Krippendorf Vs Ms Preeti Dawra & Anr" dated 16.07.2018, whereby the appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") was dismissed confirming the judgment and the decree dated 11.04.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS No. 83267/16 titled as "Preeti Dawra & Anr Vs Smt Manjula Pathak Krippendorf".
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties would be referred to, as they were referred before the Trial Court.
FACTS NOTED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE COURT
3. The plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the first floor of property no. B-56, Defence Colony, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "suit property") by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 03.08.2006.
4. It was further averred that the suit property was rented out to a third party and when the tenants left the suit premises on 05.09.2010, the defendant started causing trouble by putting up locks on gates and doors of the common entrance of the suit property.
5. The plaintiffs have provided date-wise details of the instances of obstructions caused by the defendant.
6. Before the Trial Court, it was the case of the defendant that the suit property had been illegally constructed by a person/builder Sh. Vijay Dixit, who had played fraud upon the defendant by utilizing the agreement entered by her with this person.
7. It was further averred that the defendant had claimed to have a number of litigations against this person (Sh. Vijay Dixit) and has attempted to explain that this builder executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of other persons which had been utilized in executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs are illegal occupants of the suit property and moreover the construction was also illegal because it is not approved by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "MCD").
8. The plaintiffs made the following prayers:
"a. Pass a Decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant and defendant's team from obstructing or Interfering, especially in respect of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs' attorney, plaintiff's tenants, heirs and assigns, and the agents and representatives of such persons, with entry and ingress into B-56, Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110024 through the external gates, access and movement through areas therein, including common doorways and common passages which are demarcated as common areas in the accompanying layout plan, access to, movement throughout, and the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of, the areas specified in sale deed dated 03.08.2006 as being exclusive owned by plaintiffs.
b. Pass a Decree of permanent injunction against the defendant and the defendant's team, thereby restraining defendant and defendant's team from locking, or causing the locking of, any gate or common door in B-56 land or B- 56.
c. Pass a Decree of permanent injunction against the defendant and the defendant's team, thereby restraining defendant and defendant's team from threatening, intimidating or causing any harassment to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs' attorney, plaintiffs' tenants, heirs and assigns."
WRITTEN STATEMENT
9. On the other hand, the defendant defended the instant suit by filing the Written Statement, wherein it is, inter alia, contended that the plaintiffs had concealed the material facts that the defendant had already filed a suit for declaration bearing CS (OS) No. 898/96 in the High Court of Delhi regarding the unauthorized and illegal execution of documents by the builder Sh Vijay Dixit. The plaintiffs had forcibly entered into the suit premises on 17.12.2010 after breaking the locks of the suit property. It is further stated that the plaintiffs also concealed that both the plaintiffs
