The court upheld that the absence of documented evidence for a claimed gift invalidated the respondent's assertion, allowing the appellant to regain possession of the car.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)--By way of present appeal, the appellant seeks setting aside of the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the learned ADJ-05 (South-East District), Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS DJ No. 260/2022, whereby his application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

2. Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned order, contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant is the sole, absolute and registered owner of the car make-Mercedes Maybach S500 bearing Registration No. DL-1CX-2759 (hereinafter, referred to as `the Car'), and that it was illegally retained by respondent No. 1 by claiming it to be a gift received in her son's marriage with the appellant's daughter. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra & Others reported as (2004) 4 SCC 697.

3. Per contra, Mr. Raghav, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the appellant had gifted the Car to the answering respondent at the time of marriage of their children i.e., marriage of respondent No. 3 with respondent No. 4. He has referred to Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882 to submit that the factum of `gift' stood established by the delivery of the Car. While referring to Section 41(g) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it was further submitted that in the present case, no injunction could be granted as the appellant had also acquiesced in respondent's retaining the Car with herself. Lastly, it was submitted that the appellant's application was rightly dismissed as the prayer sought in the application and the suit are same and allowing the application would have amounted to decreeing the suit itself.

4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and also gone through the entire material placed on record.

5. In the suit, it was claimed that the appellant had purchased the Car on 01.09.2017 from M/s Silver Arrows for a total consideration of Rs.1,80,48,832/- out of which, the appellant paid an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- upfront through cheque and the remaining balance was paid in equal instalments lasting upto October, 2020. Besides the aforesaid amount, an amount of Rs.22,74,389/- was also paid by the appellant towards insurance and registration charges. The Registration Certificate of the Car was issued in the appellant's name.

6. It was averred that the appellant's daughter, namely, Ms. Kriti Chopra (respondent No. 3) got married with Mr. Dushyant Israni (respondent No. 4) on 23.11.2017 and while Mr. Ved Prakash Israni (respondent No. 2) is the father-in-law, Ms. Malini Israni (respondent No. 1) is the step mother-in-law of the appellant's daughter. The appellant out of his love and affection, gave the Car to his daughter and son-in-law for temporary use. Both respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were residing with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at their house D-968, Second Floor, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Later, in April, 2019, though respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shifted to a separate premises situated at D-857, New Friends Colony, New Delhi but due to lack of parking space, they continued to park the Car at the house of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It has further been averred that till date, the appellant has been paying insurance premium towards the Car.

In the suit, the appellant prayed for being declared the owner of the Car and along with other ancillary reliefs, also sought its possession. In the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant h