2022 Supreme(Del) 2207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT BANSAL, J.
NAS – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Guest House Services Private Limited & Ors. – Respondents
CS(OS) 121 of 2020
Decided on : 28-09-2022

The court held that a prima facie case was made out on behalf of the plaintiff to continue to occupy the portion of the suit property occupied by her, that the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid property had been created in her favor in terms of the Trust-II Deed, and that the balance of convenience required that the arrangement which had continued between the parties for a period of forty years not be disturbed till the final adjudication of the suit.

Headnote:

TRUST - FAMILY TRUST - RIGHTS OF BENEFICIARIES - INTERIM INJUNCTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - LIFTING OF CORPORATE VEIL - QUASI-PARTNERSHIP - ADMISSIONS - DV ACT - FAMILY ARRANGEMENT - SUCCESSION PLAN - PERPETUAL LEASE - REVOCATION OF TRUST - SHAREHOLDING PATTERN - FAMILY SETTLEMENT - ALTER EGO - COMMON AREAS - STATUS QUO.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a director of Defendant No. 2, filed a suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing her and interfering with her peaceful and continuous enjoyment and possession of the property situated at 15, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi–110011. The property comprised of three parts: Part I occupied by the plaintiff and Defendant No. 5 as their matrimonial house, Part II occupied by Defendant No. 10 and her husband, and Part III used by Defendant No. 5 as his office. The plaintiff claimed rights in the property based on a Trust-II Deed, which was settled for structuring and planning the allocation, devolution, and functioning of the wealth and assets of the plaintiff and Defendant No. 5. The defendants pleaded that the suit property vested with Defendant No. 1 company, that the plaintiff had no legal rights in the property, and that the Trust-II Deed did not confer title and ownership over the property on the beneficiaries.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that a prima facie case was made out on behalf of the plaintiff to continue to occupy the portion of the suit property occupied by her. The court found that the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid property had been created in her favor in terms of the Trust-II Deed and that the defendant No. 5, in his written statement, had categorically stated that he had no intention of dispossessing the plaintiff from the portion of the suit property currently under her occupation. The court also found that the balance of convenience required that the arrangement which had continued between the parties for a period of forty years not be disturbed till the final adjudication of the suit.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had any rights in the suit property based on the Trust-II Deed? 2. Whether the defendants could dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property? 3. Whether the balance of convenience required that the arrangement which had continued between the parties for a period of forty years not be disturbed till the final adjudication of the suit?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Trust-II Deed was in the nature of a family arrangement between the members of the family so as to structure and plan the allocation, devolution, and functioning of their wealth, assets, and interests of the family. The court further held that even if the AZR Property (suit property) was not specifically a part of the Trust Property, it was a key element of the Trust-II Deed and therefore, the provisions of the Trust-II Deed in respect of the AZR Property would have to be given due effect. 2. The court held that the defendant No. 5, in his written statement, had categorically stated that he had no intention of dispossessing the plaintiff from the portion of the suit property currently under her occupation. The court also found that the balance of convenience required that the arrangement which had continued between the parties for a period of forty years not be disturbed till the final adjudication of the suit. 3. The court held that the balance of convenience required that the arrangement which had continued between the parties for a period of forty years not be disturbed till the final adjudication of the suit.

Final Decision: The court issued an interim injunction in the following terms: (i) Status quo with regard to title and possession shall be maintained by the parties in respect of the suit property. It is clarified that all common areas of the suit property, as identified in the proposal for interim living arrangement filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 3rd August, 2022, shall continue to be accessible to all members of the family. (ii) Status quo shall be maintained by the defendants in relation to the expenses incurred in respect of the suit property, including staff, maintenance, and upkeep expenses. (iii) Status quo shall be maintained by the defendants in relation to the payments of the statutory dues, including property tax, electricity bills, water bills, telephone bills, and internet charges in respect of the suit property.