* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 16^th November, 2023 Pronounced on : 15^th February, 2024 + FAO(OS) 112/2023 & CM APPL. 55511/2023.

NEENA KAPOOR & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Vaibhav Dang, Advocate.

versus VISHNU KHANNA ..... Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

ORDER

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. The appellants assail order dated 14.08.2023 (“impugned order”) by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No. 467/2023 (“application for rejection of plaint”) in CS(OS) 690/2022 (“subject suit”) by which appellants’ application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the subject suit for injunction against the appellants, who are arrayed as defendant nos. 1 to 4 therein, restraining them from interfering in the ingress and egress of the respondent in property at First Floor (rear flat), admeasuring 1,110 square feet in the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 112/2023 1 of 13 building constructed on a plot of land at E-14/7 Vasant Vihar, Delhi –

110057 admeasuring 400 square yards (“subject property”)

Factual Background

3. Brief facts relevant to the present adjudication are as follows:

(i) According to the plaint filed in the subject suit, respondent’s mother, Late Dr. Pushpa Khanna (“Dr. Khanna”), was the owner of the subject property, and she acquired the same through three documents, namely, the Agreement to Sell dated 20.03.1989 (“the ATS”), the General Power of Attorney dated 20.03.1989 (“the GPA”), and the Deed of Apartment dated

20.03.1989 (“the Deed”)

(ii) Dr. Khanna died intestate on 16.07.2021, and thereafter the respondent was appointed as the Interim Administrator of her estate by this Court in Test Case No. 21/2022 vide order dated 02.03.2022. On 07.07.2021, when the respondent visited the suit property, he found it to be locked by the appellants and his entry was obstructed by them. Accordingly, the respondent filed the subject suit.

(iii) Appellants raised several preliminary objections against the maintainability of the subject suit in their written statement before the learned Single Judge. They also filed an application for rejection of plaint, and the impugned order was rendered pursuant to the same.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 112/2023 2 of 13 Impugned Order

4. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed that since the respondent filed the subject suit in the capacity of an Interim Administrator, the contention that a suit for declaration of title with consequential relief ought to have been filed as opposed to a suit for injunction simpliciter is erroneous. It was further held that, since the previous suit filed by Dr. Khanna was withdrawn under Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC (as recorded in order dated 05.11.2020 in C.S. No. 169/2020) after recording the appellants’ no objection, the appellants’ contention that the subject suit is barred on the principle of estoppel is also untenable.

5. Lastly, the learned Single Judge observed that the appellants’ reliance on Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Lrd. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 656 is misplaced as, while the said decision proscribes parties from claiming title in immovable properties based on unregistered documents, it also clarifies that genuine transactions which are recognizable in law are still protected.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants

6. The appellants, inter alia, raised the following grounds to challenge the impugned order:

(i) To establish Dr. Khanna’s ownership of the suit property, respondent relied on unregistered and unstamped documents; such documents not being valid instruments of title of the suit property. Reliance in this regard was placed, inter alia, on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Suraj Lamps (supra).

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS) 112/2023 3 of 13 (ii) Furthermore, the a