Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, JJ.
Asha Jain - Appellant
Versus
Sajjan Pasari & Anr. - Respondents
FAO(OS) 81 of 2025, CM APPL. 44088 of 2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 44089 of 2025 (Ex.)
Decided on : 24-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the partition suit filed by asha jain. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. territorial jurisdiction and locus standi arguments. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. will and probate claims regarding shared properties. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. respondent's position on the stay affecting their rights. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's review of arguments presented by both sides. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. conditions for granting injunction and the appellant's failure to meet them. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 7. impact of section 52 of the tp act on property rights during litigation. (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 8. conclusion: appeal dismissed. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Through this appeal, the Appellant herein assails the correctness of the Judgment dated 14.05.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in two applications being I.A. No. 6201/2022 and I.A. No. 9027/2023filed in CS(OS) 225/2022, titled as Asha Jain vs. Sajjan Pasari and Anr. , wherein the ex parte ad-interim Order dated 01.08.2022 directing the Respondents/Defendants to maintain status quo with regards to title of all the properties listed in Schedule A of the plaint, was vacated.
2. On 21.04.2022, as alleged by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents, the Plaintiff/Appellant herein filed a suit for partition against the Respondents, asserting her claim as a co-sharer in the properties left behind by her deceased father, late Shri Banwari Lal Pasari, who passed away on 22.05.1999.
3. It is claimed that late Shri Banwari Lal Pasari was survived by two daughters, namely, Asha/Appellant and Sarita/Respondent No. 2 and a foster son, namely, Sajjan Pasari/Respondent No. 1.
4. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as one of the suit properties is located in Delhi.
5. Respondent No.1 filed a written statement in the suit, submitting that most of the suit properties were transferred by late Shri Banwari Lal Pasari in favour of the Defendants through deeds. Details of the property and its owners were disclosed as follows:
| SL. No. | Property Details | Ownership | List of Documents |
| A. | Item A of Schedule A: W-52, Second Floor, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi | Mr. Sandeep Kataria and Ms. Bhavna Kataria | NA |
| B. | Item B of Schedule A: H. No. 4 and 4-A, Rainey Park, Kolkata - 700019 | Purushottam Das Shankar Lal HUF | a. Registered Indenture dated 19th December, 1946 executed in favour of Laxmi Devi Pasari. b. The Last Will and Testament of Laxmi Devi Pasari dated 11th September, 1991 with Bhagirath Pasari as the named Executor. The said property has been bequeathed to the HUF which has already been given effect to. c. Probate of Laxmi Devi Pasari dated 18th May, 2001 granted to Bhagirath Pasari by the High Court of Calcutta as a result of which the said property vested in the said HUF. d. Mutation Certificate dated 21st February, 2024 issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. e. Latest Tax Receipt for the four quarters of FY 2024-2025 issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation on 3rd May, 2024. |
| C. | Item C of Schedule A : Property at : 12-A and 12-B, Russel Street Kolkata | [H Purushottam Das Pasari for 12-A Russel Street Uncle of the Plaintiff] industan Auto Distributors is the recorded owner for 12-B Russel Street | a. Registered Indenture dated 22nd January, 1960 executed in favour of Purshottam Das Pasari. b. Tax Receipts issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for the period of the Financial Year 2024-2025 showing Purshottam Das Pasari as the recorded owner of 12A Russel Street. c . Tax Receipts issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for the period of the Financial Year 2024-2025 showing HAD as the recorded owner of 12B Russel Street. |
| D. | Item D of Schedule A: 62-A, Hazara Road, Kolkata, Approx 122 Katha | I.A. Builders (P) Ltd | a. Registered Indenture dated 27th December, 1960 by virtue of which India Automobiles (1960) Limited became the absolute owner. b. Order dated 16th May, 2005 passed by the High Court of Calcutta sanctioning a Scheme of Arrangemen |
Appellant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss for maintaining an interim injunction concerning inherited property, leading to the dismissal of her ap....
An injunction in a partition suit is not maintainable without including all co-sharers who have transferred their shares.
Judicial discretion under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act allows for modifications in claims to ensure justice while considering evolving case needs and preventing multiplicity of litigation.
Court affirmed that in interlocutory applications for injunction, plaintiffs must demonstrate a prima facie case and balance of convenience, reinforcing the discretion of trial courts in such matters....
To obtain an interim injunction, a party must demonstrate a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience favoring the injunction.
A party cannot claim an injunction against the real owner of property, and the classification of property as ancestral or self-acquired must await trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss and injury when considering the grant of interim relief thro....
The court affirmed its inherent authority to issue preservation orders under Article 227 and Section 151 of CPC, regardless of injunction criteria not being satisfied, emphasizing the maintenance of ....
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
