The transfer of property by one spouse, despite ongoing disputes, upheld when proper process and ownership evidence are established; injunction claims dismissed under Specific Relief Act provisions.

JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gautam Budh Nagar in Original Suit Nos. 1199 of 2009 and 1187 of 2011, as such, both the appeals are being decided by the present common judgment.

2. The facts giving-rise to the present dispute are that an Original Suit No. 1199 of 2009 was instituted by Pushpendra Singh Sirohi and Smt. Poonam Agarwal against Smt. Sonu Sirohi for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to vacate the flat and restore the possession to the plaintiff. A further prayer was made for mesne-profit @ Rs.80,000/- per month from the date of Institution of the suit till actual physical possession is delivered to the plaintiff. For the sake of brevity, the present suit is being referred hereinafter as Suit No. 1 and plaintiff of aforesaid suit are being referred hereinafter as plaintiff nos. 1 & 2 of Suit No. 1. The defendant, namely, Smt. Sonu Sirohi is being referred hereinafter as defendant of Suit No.1.

3. The facts as stated in the plaint are that the defendant of suit no. 1 was married with plaintiff no.1 of suit no. 1. A tripartite agreement dated 15.6.2006 between NOIDA, M/s A.T.S. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and plaintiff no.1 of suit no. 1 was executed and thus the plaintiff no. 1 of suit no. 1 became owner of Flat No. 1201, Ground Floor, ATS Green Village, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred as "flat in dispute").

4. It is further alleged that the defendant of suit no.1 being married wife of plaintiff no. 1 of suit no.1, was authorized to realize the rent of disputed flat. In due course of time, the relation between the plaintiff No.1of suit no. 1 and defendant of suit no. 1 became strained and various litigations, including proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, were initiated by the defendant of suit no.1.

5. It is further alleged that a license to realize the rent of disputed flat was given to the defendant of suit no. 1, which was revoked on 17.11.2009. Thus, after revocation of License, the plaintiff No.1 of suit No. 1 is entitled for possession of flat in dispute and the possession of defendant of suit No.1 over disputed flat is illegal. Accordingly, the relief of mandatory injunction and mesne-profit have been prayed for by instituting Suit No. 1199 of 2009.

6. It is further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff no. 1 of suit no. 1 decided to sell the disputed flat to the plaintiff no. 2 of suit no. 1 and therefore on 8.2.2011, M/s ATS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd issued no objection certificate for transfer of flat in dispute in favour of the petitioner no. 2 of suit no. 1. On 17.2.2011, the plaintiff no. 1 filed transfer application with NOIDA and on 24.3.2011, on execution of indemnity bond by plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no. 2 in favour of NOIDA, permission for the transfer was granted and accordingly, the transfer memorandum and transfer-cum-sale deed was executed between plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2 of suit no.1 for sale consideration of Rs. 95 lacs.

7. The defendant of suit no. 1, namely, Smt. Sonu Sirohi instituted Original Suit No. 1187 of 2011 (Smt. Sonu Sirohi Vs. Smt. Poonam Agarwal, Pushpendra Singh Sirohi, ATS Infrastructures and Noida Authority). The suit is being referred as suit no. 2. In the aforesaid suit, a relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from evicting the plaintiff Smt. Sonu Sirohi, from the flat in dispute was prayed for. By way of amendment, a decree for declaring the transfer deed dated 25.3.2011,