Delhi High Court - Orders
Smt. Sarita Singh vs Sh. Pradeep Kumar & Ors on 3 June, 2021
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 152/2021
SMT. SARITA SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vineet Rana, Advocate.
versus
SH. PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
ORDER
% 03.06.2021 CM APPL.18236/2021 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CM APPL.18237/2021 (for exemption to file notor ized affidavits and Cour t fees) Exempted, subject to filing notarized affidavits and Court fees within one week of the lockdown being opened. FAO 152/2021 & CM APPL.18235/2021
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Appellant impugns order dated 27.03.2021 whereby the application of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been dismissed.
3. Appellant had filed the subject suit for partition, possession and Digitally Signed Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA MAGGU Signing Date:03.06.2021 Signing Date:03.06.2021 20:04:28 19:28 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
FAO 152/2021 1permanent injunction inter alia for property bearing No.226 out of Khasra No.532, VPO-Khera Khurd, New Delhi-110082 measuring 542 sq.yards.
4. Learned counsel submits that the subject property was owned by the father of the appellant and the respondent and after his demise, intestate, his estate has devolved on all the legal heirs.
5. Learned counsel submits that there is already an interim order restraining respondents from creating any third party right in the subject property, however, recently respondent Nos.1 & 2 have started raising illegal unauthorised construction in the subject property.
6. Learned counsel submits that even the Municipal Corporation and the Delhi Police have initiated action against the illegal unauthorised construction being raised.
7. Learned counsel submits that the defence of the respondent in the suit is that the respondents had got the mutation of the subject property done in their name based on a relinquishment deed dated April, 2013 registered on 24.05.2013.
8. Learned counsel submits that the subject relinquishment deed is with regard to an award with regard to acquisition of a different land and not the subject suit property.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the Trial Court has erred in dismissing the application by holding that respondents are in Digitally Signed Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA MAGGU Signing Date:03.06.2021 Signing Date:03.06.2021 20:04:28 19:28 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
FAO 152/2021 2possession of the suit property and carrying out improvements in the suit property and as such they cannot be restrained. He submits that substantial addition, alteration is being made in the property and floors are being raised over the existing structure.
10. Perusal of the photographs annexed as Annexure A-8 (Colly) ex facie show that substantial construction is being raised in the subject property and floors are being added. Prima facie the finding of the Trial Court that merely improvements are being carried out in the suit property does not seem to be borne out from the record.
11. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 03.08.2021.
12. In the meantime, respondents are restrained from raising any construction in the subject property till the next date of hearing.
13. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JUNE 3, 2021
rk
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:03.06.2021
Signing Date:03.06.2021 20:04:28 19:28
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
FAO 152/2021 3