An interim injunction should be refused where the defendant has long-standing settled possession supported by public records and the plaintiff's claim of ignorance of such possession is contradicted by evidence, as the balance of convenience favors maintaining the status quo until trial.

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC), has been filed by the plaintiff in C.S. No. 827/2023 on the file of the learned District Judge–07, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 20.07.2024, by which the trial court dismissed his application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

2. In this appeal, the parties herein, unless otherwise specified, shall be referred to as described in the original suit.

3. The averments made in the plaint are thus: The plaintiff is the owner of the entire freehold lower ground floor admeasuring 200 square yards of property bearing no. 11/8, West, Patel Nagar, New Delhi (the suit property), having purchased the same from one Veena Chugh vide two registered sale deed dated 28.01.2021. It is averred that Veena Chugh had acquired the property vide two registered sale deeds dated 22.11.2000 from the erstwhile owners, Abha Bhatia and Asha Bhatia, through their attorney Amit Babbar, and thus had clear and marketable title, which was validly conveyed to the plaintiff vide the sale deed dated 28.01.2021.

3.1. According to the plaintiff, defendant no. 1/respondent no.1 herein was never the owner of any portion of the suit property and was merely permitted to occupy a small portion admeasuring about 100 square feet as a licensee or caretaker during the period when Veena Chugh was the owner. During the execution of the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff, he was assured that defendant no. 1 would vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the property shortly. However, on completion of the execution of the sale deeds, defendant no. 1 refused to vacate the property and instead started asserting his ownership rights. It was further alleged that defendant no. 1 is relying upon a sale deed dated 07.12.1998, which is forged and fabricated and was fraudulently introduced into the record of defendant no. 2, the Sub-Registrar-II, Basai Darapur, New Delhi-110027. Various discrepancies in the said document relating to signatures, seals, attestation and endorsements are highlighted to contend that the sale deed is non est in the eyes of law. On the basis of the said allegations, the plaintiff claimed to have initiated criminal proceedings and also instituted the present suit seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the sale deed dated 07.12.1998 is null and void, recovery of possession of the suit property, mandatory directions to defendant no.2 and damages/mesne profits.

3.2. Defendant no. 1 entered appearance and filed written statement, contending that he is the absolute owner of the suit property by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 07.12.1998 and that he has been in open, continuous and settled possession thereof for more than two decades. Defendant no. 1 has been running a commercial establishment in the suit property and has been a regular tax payer and has been paying other bills and municipal dues in his own name, which demonstrates his long standing possession of the suit property. Defendant no. 1 also contended that the plaintiff has been residing in the same building much prior to the year 2021 and was fully aware about defendant no. 1’s possession and ownership claim by relying on the Writ Petition filed by the plaintiff in the year 2017 [W.P.(C) 10757/2017], titled as M.K. Chand & Ors. Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, wherein the photographs of the subject property were placed on record by the