$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA 245/2024 BALJIT KAUR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Advocate via video-conferencing.

versus AJIT SINGH & ORS.

.....Respondent Through: Mr.Ankit Jain, Sr.Adv., Mr.Aditya Chauhan, Adv, Mr. Parth Gautam, Adv., Mr. Eish Kesarwani, Adv, for R-1 & R-2.

Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Advocate for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026 CM APPL. 21645/2024 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 (sic) under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff for Ad-Interim Injunction)

1. An Application has been filed on behalf of the Appellant, wherein it is submitted that this is a First Regular Appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2023 vide which the Suit for Partition filed by the Appellant, got dismissed.

2. It is submitted that the Appellants have a good prima facie case in their favour and are likely to succeed. Balance of Convenience is also in favour of the Appellant. The Respondent/Defendant No.1 had demolished the single storey Suit property in collaboration with Respondent No.3 Builder and converted the single storeyed Suit property into a multi-storey building, comprising of Basement and three floors including the Ground Floor.

3. The Appellant/Plaintiff was apprehending that Respondent No.1 was actively negotiating with some Builder/Contractor for the sale of entire property including 1/3^rd share of the Plaintiff and thereby, filed an Application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining Respondent No.1 from selling/transferring, alienating or encumbering the Suit property or parting with the possession.

4. The Single Bench of this Court had granted an Ex-parte Injunction vide Order 28.09.2000 restraining Respondent No.1 from selling/transferring, alienating or encumbering or parting with the possession of the Suit property to the extent of 1/3^rd share as is claimed by the Appellant.

5. The FAO(OS) No.42/2001 was filed by the Builder/Respondent No.3 whereby Division Bench of this Court allowed him to be impleaded as Defendant No.3 and modified the Injunction dated 28.09.2000 vide Order dated 30.03.2001 thereby vacating the stay with regard to First and Second Floor of the newly constructed property which fell to the share of Respondent No.3 while observed that Basement and Ground Floor which had fallen to the share of Defendant No.1 was enough to safeguard the rights of the Plaintiff. It was, therefore, directed that Injunction shall continue in respect of Basement and Ground Floor and the Possession of the same be not parted with or the property alienated, transferred and no third party interest be created. It is submitted that the circumstances justify a stay in favour of the Appellant till the pendency of the present Appeal.

6. Learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No.1 and 2 vehemently contested the Application and has submitted that the limited estate had been created in favour of the mother by virtue of the Will dated 14.06.1983, wherein it was specifically so stated and after her demise the property shall devolve upon Respondent No.1 Ajit Singh, the son.

The Suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant has, therefore, been dismissed by observing that since there was a limited estate created in favour of the mother, the daughter/Appellant was not entitled to any share in the property, as was claimed by her. It is submitted that from the covenants of the Will, it is evident that mother had no absolute right to the Suit property and, therefore, the Injunction is opposed.

Submissions heard and record perused.

7. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent and also considering express covenants of the Will, no case is made out for grant of Interim stay.

8. The Application is accordingly disposed of.

RFA 245/2024

9. Written submissions, as already directed, be filed by both the parties within eight weeks failing which the same shall be taken