SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



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




Suits for mandatory injunctions can succeed if ownership is established, countering the Trial Court's denial based on misinterpretation of property law.

Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 36 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 92 - Related to injunctions and suits for mandatory and perpetual injunctions. The Plaintiffs sought relief against the Defendants regarding four properties owned by their late relatives. The Appellate Court held that the Plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of Shop No.8 and the residential property, reflecting an error in the Trial Court’s assessment of ownership and injunction rights. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 15, 21)

(B) Reliefs sought in a perpetual and mandatory injunction are maintainable; Plaintiffs initially failed to prove ownership. The findings of the trial court regarding the non-alienation rights were incorrect as they did not correctly interpret the sale deed and ownership claims of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants had denied ownership, but substantial evidence, including property documents, supported the Plaintiffs' claims. (Paras 11, 13, 19)

Facts of the case:
The second appeal arose from a suit filed by the family of a deceased individual seeking injunction against alleged interference by relatives in property ownership. The Appellate Court modified the original ruling by granting the Plaintiffs’ claims over Shop No.8 and residential property No.5672 based on proper legal interpretation.

Findings of Court:
The relief of permanent injunction was granted regarding ownership claims for two properties, recognizing the Plaintiffs’ rights and rejecting the earlier Trial Court's findings as incorrect.

Issues: Whether the Plaintiffs had established ownership over the properties and the appropriateness of granting injunction relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The Appellate Court found that injunction relief is applicable where the evidence of ownership supports Plaintiffs' claims, overturning the Trial Court's decision that incorrectly interpreted property ownership.

Result: Appeals dismissed; the Plaintiffs were granted the injunction they sought.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top