Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Rajinder Sharma vs Usha Sharma on 30 March, 2022

Author: Mukta Gupta

Bench: Mukta Gupta, Neena Bansal Krishna

                          $~20
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      MAT.APP.(F.C.) 34/2022
                                 RAJINDER SHARMA                                 ..... Appellant
                                          Represented by:       Mr. C.M. Grover, Adv. with appellant
                                                                in person.
                                                   versus

                                 USHA SHARMA                                      ..... Respondent
                                         Represented by:

                                 CORAM:
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                                 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
                                                   ORDER
                          %                        30.03.2022
                          CM APPL. 15898/2022

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 34/2022 and CM APPL. 15897/2022 (stay)

1. By this appeal the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 3rd February, 2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court whereby the suit filed by the respondent for permanent & mandatory injunction and mesne profit/ damage was decreed in her favour and the learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was an absolute owner of the property vide the registered general power of attorney dated 21st April, 1998 coupled with the registered Will and notarized agreement to sell, affidavit all dated 21st April, 1998 executed by Shri Gurvinder Singh, the erstwhile owner in her favour.

2. To disprove the case of the respondent, the appellant had only Signature Not Verified MAT.APP.(F.C.) 34/2022 Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE Page 1 of 2 MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:01.04.2022 16:51:03 submitted another agreement to sell with Gurvinder Singh which does not prove the title of the appellant.

3. After some arguments, learned counsel for the appellant confines his challenge in the present appeal is that mesne profit and damages awarded against the appellant and in favour of the respondent are high and the property in question is a fourth-floor property with no lift and hence the mesne profit/damages needs to be reduced.

4. Issue notice to the respondent limited to the issue of mesne profit/ damages, on the appellant taking steps through e-mail/SMS/whatsapp/speed post/courier returnable before this Court on 24th May, 2022.

5. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

MARCH 30, 2022 'ga' Signature Not Verified MAT.APP.(F.C.) 34/2022 Digitally Signed By:JUSTICE Page 2 of 2 MUKTA GUPTA Signing Date:01.04.2022 16:51:03