IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Jolly Khanna - Appellant
Versus
Pooja Khanna - Respondent
RSA 60 of 2021 & CM Appl. 24333 of 2021
Decided On : 10-12-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and properties involved. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial court's findings on key issues. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. appellate court's review and modifications. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. legal principles on relief mechanisms. (Para 15 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. final decision and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.
2. The present second appeal arises out of the judgment dated 15th April, 2021 passed by the ADJ-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "Appellate Court") in RCA No.19/2019 in Pooja Khanna & Ors. v. Ashwini Khanna & Ors. By the impugned judgment and order, the Appellate Court has modified the judgement dated 2nd March, 2019 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-05 (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") in CS No.94303/16 titled Pooja Khanna v. Ashwini Khanna.
3. The background of the case is that a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction, and for rendition of accounts was filed by the family of Late Shri Vijay Kumar Khanna against the Defendant No.1-Shri Ashwini Khanna, and Defendant Nos.2-3 who are the family members of Late Shri Manohar Lal Khanna. Shri Vijay Kumar Khanna, Shri Manohar Lal Khanna and Shri Ashwini Khanna are brothers, and sons of Late Shri Mangat Ram Khanna. Shri Vijay Khanna and Shri Manohar Lal Khanna have passed away, and are survived by their respective families. The reliefs sought in the suit are:
"a. A decree for perpetual injunction be passed restraining the Defendants their agents, representatives, assignees etc. from selling, assigning or creating any third party interest in respect of Shop No. 8, Gali Jugal Kishore (Gali Ghante Wali), Chandni Chowk, IIaqa No. A, Delhi-110006 and in respect of residential property bearing No. 5672, Gali No.2, New Chandrawal, Kolhaopur, Delhi and in respect of two godowns No. 9 & 10 in property bearing No.1875. Haveli Jugal Kishore, (Gali Ghante-Wali) Chandni Chowk, IIaqa No.4, Delhi-110006 permanently; and
b. A decree for mandatory injunction be passed directing the Defendants their agents, representatives, assignees etc. from removing the locks installed at Shop No.8, Gali Jugal Kishon (Gali Ghante Wali), Chandni Chowk, IIaqa No.4, Delhi-110006 and at Shop No. 14 Gali Jugal Kishore (Gali Ghante-Wali), Chandni Chowk, IIaqa No.4, Delhi-110006 which was being run under the name and style of M/s. Manohar Lal Vijay Kumar and to quit therefrom, and
c. A decree for rendition of accounts be passed directing the Defendants to render the true and correct accounts of the business run under the name and style of M/s. Manohar Lal Vijay Kumar and M/s. Khanna Trading Company by appointment of a Local Commissioner to go into the accounts and directing the Defendants to produce all the relevant accounts etc. and decree be thereafter passed for whatever amount the Plaintiffs are found entitled on the rendition of the said accounts;and
d. The Plaintiff be also awarded the costs of the suit; and
e. Any other further order or relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be also awarded to the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case."
4. The suit related to the following four properties:
(i) Shop. No.8, Gali Jugal Kishore (Gali Ghante Vale), Chandni Chowk, Illaka No.4, Delhi-110006. ("Shop No.8").
(ii) Shop No.14, Gali Jugal Kishore (Gali Ghante Vale), Chandni Chowk, Illaka No.4, Delhi-110006. ("Shop No.14").
(iii) Residential Property bearing no.5672-73, Gali No.2, New Chandrawal, Kolhapur Road, Delhi ("Property bearing No.5672").
(iv) Two Godowns No. 9 & 10 in Property bearing No.1875, Haveli, Jugal Kishore (Gali Ghante Vale, Chandni Chowk, Illaka No.4, Delhi-110006. ("Godown No. 9 & 10").
5. In the suit, the following issues were framed.
"(i) Whether the present suit ha
Suits for mandatory injunctions can succeed if ownership is established, countering the Trial Court's denial based on misinterpretation of property law.
A suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable without a declaration of ownership, especially when the plaintiff admits that part of the property is in the possession of the defendants.
Mandatory injunctions require clear evidence of possession rights; mere claims of permissive possession undermined by admissions establishing tenant status.
Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Where there is construction raised on disputed property alleged to be owned by plaintiffs, appropriate and efficacious remedy available to them was to institute suit f....
The Court emphasized the high standard required for the grant of a temporary mandatory injunction and the need to consider irreparable harm and balance of convenience. It also highlighted that such r....
A plaintiff can seek a mandatory injunction to remove encroachments on property even if the suit is effectively for recovery of possession, provided the plaintiff has established title and is willing....
Valuation of suit – It is nature of relief claimed in plaint which is decisive of question of suit valuation – Market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because an immovable prop....
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.