JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 16th September, 2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in MCA No. 139/2003.
2. The Petitioner had filed a suit for a perpetual injunction restraining Respondents No. 1 and 2 from interfering in the demolition and reconstruction of a portion of the property bearing No. 20 (Old), 168 (New), Village Haider Pur, Delhi.
3. According to the Petitioner, the suit property was acquired by his grand father (and a common ancestor) Mangli Ram and it was partitioned between his sons Ghasi Ram, Budh Ram and Kishan Chand.
4. It was averred that sometime in 1993, Respondent No. 4, the brother of the Petitioner said that he would demolish the staircase in his portion of the suit property and which was being used only by the Petitioner. In fact, this staircase was demolished by Respondent No. 4 and so the Petitioner began constructing a new staircase on the land which had fallen to his share. This was objected to by Respondents No. 1 and 2. There was also an averment made by the Petitioner that a settlement had been arrived the on 16th December, 1993 whereby the parties had agreed not to object to any construction above the 'Baithak'.
5. In the aforesaid suit, the Petitioner moved an interim application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for the same relief as prayed for in the suit. The injunction application was dismissed by a learned Civil Judge by an order dated 4th June, 2003
6. After considering the facts of the case, the learned Civil Judge found that the partition claimed by the Petitioner was in grave doubt and even the settlement was alleged to have been fabricated. Under the circumstances, it was held that no prima facie case has been made out by the Petitioner for the grant of an interim injunction.
7. The contentions urged before the learned Civil Judge were also raised in appeal before the learned Senior Civil Judge. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on a perusal of the documents and material on record, accepted the view that the partition claimed by the Petitioner was in grave doubt inasmuch as there was no averment when the partition took place or whether it was written or oral or whether it was registered or unregistered.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has reiterated the contentions urged in both the Courts below, but I am not impressed with the contentions urged. Both the Courts below came to a prima facie conclusion that the partition on the basis of which the Petitioner claims an exclusive right to a particular share in the suit property is itself in doubt. This being the position, there is no right that the Petitioner can claim to construct over what he claims to be his portion of the suit property.
9. I do not find any manifest error or perversity in the view taken by the Courts below. The view taken by them is quite reasonable. Reliance placed by the Petitioner on the settlement dated 16th December, 2003 is also misplaced inasmuch as that settlement is also of doubtful validity and, therefore, does not establish the case of the Petitioner.
10. There is no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.
11. CM No. 1631/2003 is also dismissed.