$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 04.12.2025 + FAO 165/2023 and CM APPL. 35362/2023 & CM APPL.

35363/2023 MS POOJA ARORA & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva, Advocate.

versus MEENAKSHI GUPTA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Rai and Ms. Amisha Ray, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. The present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC), assails the order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the learned ADJ-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No. 1032/2022, whereby the trial court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property.

2. In the appeal, the parties herein shall be referred to in the same rank as they are arrayed in the original suit.

3. Brief facts necessary for adjudicating this appeal are as follows:- The sole plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit seeking cancellation of a Sale Deed dated 17.02.2021 executed in favour of defendant no. 1/appellant no. 1 herein, along with reliefs of possession and permanent injunction. The plaintiff claims title to the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 04.03.2021 and asserts that she was in control of the suit property prior to the alleged acts of trespass and demolition attributed to defendant no.

2/appellant no.2, leading to complaints to the local police.

3.1. It is the defendants’ case that defendant no. 1 is the lawful owner of the suit property by virtue of Sale deed dated 17.02.2021, which was executed by the erstwhile owner Shri B.D. Kakkar. They assert that they have been in continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the property since 1996. It is also their case that the plaintiff’s alleged chain of title, including the documents executed in favour of her vendor, is forged, fabricated, unsupported by consideration and incapable of conveying any valid right or interest in the suit property.

4. The trial court, while observing that both the parties assert their title to the suit property on the basis of registered documents and that the question of possession is also in dispute, held vide the impugned order that the circumstances require the property to be preserved and thus directed the parties to maintain status quo until the suit is finally decreed by the trial court.

5. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants have approached this court challenging the impugned order.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that the trial court failed to appreciate that defendant no.1 is the lawful owner of the suit property by virtue of Sale Deed dated 17.02.2021. The learned counsel emphasised that the said sale deed is earlier in point of time than the plaintiff’s sale deed dated

04.03.2021, and hence, by the strength of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, no valid title could have been conveyed to the plaintiff thereafter.

6.1 The learned counsel for the defendants would also submit that defendant no.1 was put into possession pursuant to the registered sale deed and that the trial court has ignored the material fact that, as on 04.03.2021, i.e., when the latter sale deed was executed, the vendor of the plaintiff, had no subsisting right, title or interest to convey. It is submitted that the plaintiff’s documents are entirely fabricated, false and hold no legal validity.

6.2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff never had any possession of the suit property and that the allegations of trespass and demolition are unfounded. The learned counsel would also submit that the plaintiff’s deed is sham as it is without consideration, and that the plaintiff herself admitted before the investigating officer in Crime No. 449/2021, Hari Nagar Police Station, West Delhi. It is asserted that the plaintiff’s chain of title is a result of manipulation and forged documentation, whereas the defendants’ chain flows directly from