Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 4819

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
M/s Clark Constructions Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Nikesh Jain – Respondent
CS (OS) 205/2022,
CCP(O) 30 of 2022
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harkirat Singh, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Manish Vashisht, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rikky Gupta, Ms. Ananya Singh & Mr. Vanshay Kaul, Advocates, for the Respondent in CS(OS) 205/2022.
Mr. Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harkirat Singh, Advocate for D-1 &2 in CCP(O) 30/2022
Mr. Manish Vashisht, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rikky Gupta, Ms. Ananya Singh and Mr. Vanshay Kaul, Advocates for all the respondents in CCP(O) 30/2022 and D-4 &5 in CS (OS) 205/2022
Mr. S.D Singh, Mr. Kamal Prasad, Mr. Jitender Singh, Mr. Prajwal M.R. & Mr. Siddharth Singh, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for parties to establish physical possession and legal rights through conclusive evidence, and the dismissal of claims based on inconclusive documents.

Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Property Dispute - Constitution of India, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Article 215, Sections 11, 12, Order 39 Rule 2A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly focusing on the provisions related to willful disobedience of court orders and maintenance of status quo. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:

The Civil Suit involved a property dispute between the legal representatives of the deceased owner and the defendants claiming ownership through various transactions. The court had directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the title and possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that none of the parties could establish physical possession of the property and that the disputed documents did not establish legal rights until determined after evidence. The court dismissed the contempt application, concluding that the petitioners failed to prove a violation of the status quo order by the respondents.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the possession and ownership of the property, the alleged violation of the status quo order, and the conflicting claims of the parties based on disputed documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence of physical possession by any party and the inconclusive nature of the disputed documents in establishing legal rights. The court emphasized the need for determination after evidence and dismissed the contempt application.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the contempt application, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim of violation of the status quo order by the respondents.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

CCP(O) 30/2022 in CS(OS) 205/2022

1. The petitioner, M/s Clark Construction Pvt. Ltd (which was defendant no.1 in the Civil Suit) has filed a contempt petition under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for willful and deliberate disobedience of the Order dated 12.04.2022 of this Court.

2. The Civil Suit was filed by the plaintiffs namely, Ms. Sharda Jain and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Jain, wife and son of Mr. Indra Chand Jain respectively in respect of property bearing Plot no. 1, Kasturba Gandhi Marg admeasuring 2250 sq. yards, (hereinafter referred to as suit property) seeking declaration that they are the legal representatives and successors of late Indra Chand Jain, owner of the suit property and that the plaintiff no. 2, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Jain is the owner of the said property on the basis of a Will dated 09.11.2020 executed in his favour by his father, late Mr. Indra Chand Jain and also claimed other reliefs of injunction for restraining defendants from dispossessing or interfering with his possession.

3. M/s Clark Construction Private Limited, defendant no. 1 and Mr. Satinder Singh Chhabra, defendant no. 2, as its Director (who are the petitioners in the present Contempt Application), in their Written Statement set up a plea that late Mr. Indra Chand Jain, during his lifetime, had transferred the ownership of the suit property in favour of the answering defendants. The sale consideration was given to Mr. Indra Chand Jain in the form of Rs. 2,500 shares of defendant no. 1, Company having a value of Rs. 3 Crores 50 lakhs and Sh. Indra Chand Jain was also made the Director in defendant no. 1, Company. Further the legal possession of the property was handed over to defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 though Mr. Indra Chand Jain was permitted to continue to live in the premises during his lifetime. This transaction was recorded by the deceased Late Mr. Indra Chand Jain in his letter dated 01.10.2021.

4. Late Mr. Indra Chand Jain died on 13.11.2021 and thereafter the answering defendants came in possession of the suit property. They employed Mr. Jaith Ram, Chawkidar, who had been earlier looking after the property for and on behalf of Mr. Indra Chand Jain, as their employee to continue as the caretaker of the property.

5. Respondents No. 2 & 3 namely Mr. Hem Chand Jain and Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain, (Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 in the main Suit) in the interim, filed Writ Petition bearing no. W.P. (C) 14269/2021 through Mr. Nikesh Jain as the Power of Attorney Holder, in this Court claiming that late Mr. Indra Chand Jain had executed a Will dated 21.09.2018 in their favour and they be declared as owners of the suit property. However, the applicants herein contested the Writ Petition and claimed that the Will projected by defendant nos. 4 and 5 was forged and fabricated by them and they have no right, title and interest in the suit property which already stood transferred in favour of defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3. It was claimed that Mr. Nikesh Jain had sought to illegally dispossess defendant no. 1, the Company from the suit property.

6. When the present suit was filed, on the first date vide order dated 12.04.2022, this Court while directing the summons to be issued to the defendants, directed that the parties shall maintain status quo with respect to the title and possession of the suit property and to ascertain as to who was in possession of the suit property. The Local Commissioner was appointed with the directions that the parties shall grant access to the Local Commissioner who shall call upon the parties to furnish the proof thereof of their possession.

7. The Local Commissioner visited the suit property on 12.04.2022 itself at about 4.40 pm and submitted a Report on 24.04.2022 whereby she reported as under:

6. That subsequently, the Local Commissioner along with the Advocates of the De