Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
Sarita Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding the application dismissal (Para 1 , 8 , 10) |
| 2. ownership and illegal construction issues (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. continuation of interim order (Para 9 , 11) |
| 4. confirmation of the interim order (Para 13) |
| 5. order's impact on rights and contentions (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Appellant impugns order dated 27.03.2021 whereby the application of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Appellant had filed the subject suit for partition, possession and permanent injunction inter alia for property bearing No.226 out of Khasra No.532, VPO-Khera Khurd, New Delhi-110082 measuring 542 sq.yards.
3. Learned counsel submits that the subject property was owned by the father of the appellant and the respondent and after his demise intestate, his estate has devolved on all the legal heirs.
4. Learned counsel submits that there is already an interim order restraining respondents from creating any third party right in the subject property, however, recently respondent Nos.1 & 2 have started raising illegal unauthorised construction in the subject property.
5. Learned counsel submits that even the Municipa
The court upheld the interim order restraining unauthorized construction on the property during the pendency of the partition suit, emphasizing the prohibition of actions that could cause irreparable....
Possession and title claims must be substantiated by registered documents; unregistered agreements do not confer legal ownership.
The requirement for registered title documents and the need to establish uninterrupted possession to claim ownership of the property.
Point of law: If an injunction is obtained falsely stating that High Court has refused to grant an injunction and when the same is also not considered on main and it will be considered along with mai....
An order passed by the Court at any stage of the case has equal efficacy and cannot be violated.
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 court clarified that an injunction cannot stand if the party seeking it is not presently in possession of the property.
The applicability of Section 10 of the CPC is determined by the identity of issues in the suits, not the nature of relief sought.
The court emphasized the difficulty in establishing exclusive possession and highlighted the protection of the petitioner's interest in the ongoing suit for partition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
