Delhi High Court
Smt. Ranjana Sabharwal & Ors. vs Smt. Rama Devi & Anr. on 25 November, 2009
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
FAO. No.361/2009 & CM No. 16694/2009
% Judgment reserved on: 20th November, 2009
Judgment delivered on: 25th November, 2009
1. Smt. Ranjana Sabharwal,
W/o Sh. Sandeep Sabharwal,
R/o DDA MIG Flat No. 31 C, Pkt-VI, Site II,
Phase-I, Nasirpur, Dwarka
New Delhi-110045.
2. Sh. Arun Vaish,
S/o Sh. Om Parkash Vaish,
R/o RZ51/A, Gali No. 4, Mahavir Enclave,
Palam Road,
New Delhi- 110045.
3. Sh. Tarun Vaish,
S/o Om Prakash Vaish,
R/o DDA MIG Flat No. 31 C, Pkt-VI, Site II,
Phase-I, Nasirpur, Dwarka
New Delhi-110045.
....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Bharti, Adv.
Versus
1. Smt. Rama Devi,
R/o RZ51/A, Gali No. 4, Mahavir Enclave,
Palam Road,
New Delhi- 110045.
2. Ms. Purvashi Vaish,
D/o Sh. Om Parkash Vaish,
R/o RZ51/A, Gali No. 4, Mahavir Enclave,
Palam Road,
New Delhi- 110045.
....Respondents.
Through: Nemo
FAO No.361/2009 Page 1 of 4
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B.Gupta, J.
Present appeal has been filed against order dated 3rd November, 2009
passed by Additional District Judge, New Delhi, vide which application under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the appellants was
dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).
2. Brief facts are that appellants filed suit for possession of property no.
RZF-51 A, situated at Village Palam, New Delhi. Appellants' case is that this
property was sold by one Sh. Ram Chander on 1st May, 1979 and he executed
various documents namely, General Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. O. P.
Vaish S/o Sh. Harnam Dass who is father of appellants. Agreement to Sell, Will
and receipt in favour of respondent no. 1, Smt. Rama Devi W/o Sh. O.P. Vaish.
3. Sh. O. P. Vaish died on 6th January, 1999 and as such irrevocable General
Power of Attorney executed in favour of Sh. O. P. Vaish, devolved in favour of
the legal heirs namely, present appellants and respondent no. 2. Thus, property in
question as on date belongs to legal heirs of Sh. O. P. Vaish.
4. The case of respondent no. 1 is that she is the absolute owner of the suit
property and this is her-self acquired property. No cause of action lies in favour
of appellants.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that property in question
belongs to appellants. Respondent no. 1 has no right in the said property and
agreement to sell does not confer a title on the purchaser i.e. respondent no. 1.
Moreover, payment was made by Sh. O. P. Vaish, father of the appellants.
6. Principles for grant of temporary injunction are well settled;
(i) That there has to be a prima facie case in favour of
the party who is seeking relief of injunction;
(ii) Balance of convenience lies in his/her favour and;
(iii) Lastly, they will suffer irreparable loss if injunction
is not granted.
7. Appellants have not placed on record even a single document on the basis
of which they claim title to the property in question.
8. On the other hand, as per appellants own case agreement to sell was
executed in favour of respondent no. 1 and vendor received entire sale
consideration from respondent no. 1. Under these circumstances, prima facie,
appellants have no legal title in the property in question.
9. Trial court rightly dealt with this issue and there is no reason to disagree
with the findings of the trial court, which are reproduced as under:
"The position which emerges from the discussion
noted above is that it is an admitted fact that the
vendor of suit property executed a GPA in favour of
father of Plaintiffs and husband of defendant no. 1.
The Agreement to sell, Registered Receipt,
Registered Will and Affidavit are executed in
favour of defendant No. 1. As per said documents,
sale consideration passed from defendant no.1 to
vendor. The GPA Holder, Shri O. P. Vaish has
died. The plaintiffs admit that the GPA has come to
an end after his death. Therefore, the LRs of Shri O.
P. Vaish will not become owners of suit property
after the death of GPA holder who himself was not
the owner of Suit property during his lifetime.
After his death, his LRs cannot have a title better
than him. The objection to the defect in the title of
Defendant no. 1 cannot be taken by her own
children, being also the children of GPA holder,
their father.
10. Thus, no ambiguity can be found with the impugned order passed by the
trial court. The present appeal is thus not maintainable and same is dismissed
with costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).
11. Costs be deposited with "Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee"
within four weeks from today and receipt of the same be placed on record.
12. List on 5th January, 2010, for compliance.
+CM No.16694/2009
*
Dismissed, being infructuous.
25th November , 2009 V.B.Gupta, J.
ab
