Delhi High Court
Shri Tilak Raj Ahuja vs Shri Mahesh Chander Ahuja on 30 November, 2010
Author: V. K. Jain
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Pronounced on: 30.11.2010
+ IA No.10202/2006 in CS(OS) No. 1759/2006
SHRI TILAK RAJ AHUJA .....Plaintiff
- versus -
SHRI MAHESH CHANDER AHUJA .....Defendant
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Atul Bandhu and Mr. Karan Ahuja
For the Defendant: Ms. Anupam Gupta
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in Digest? No
V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an application seeking interim injunction
restraining the defendant, his associates, servants,
employees, etc. from causing any interference, disturbance
and hindrance in the peaceful enjoyment of the roof of the
suit property during pendency of the suit.
2. The parties to the suit are brothers, being sons of
late Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja and late Smt. Chanan Devi.
Late Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja was the owner of property No.
J-13/9, Rajouri Garden and Z-127, Loha Mandi, Naraina. It
is alleged in the plaint that after death of Sh. Harbans Lal
Ahuja, Smt. Chanan Devi, mother of the parties, had
relinquished her 1/3rd share in property No. J-13/9, Rajouri
Garden, left by Sh. Harbans Lal Ahuja, in favour of the
plaintiff, thereby making him owner of 2/3 rd share in the
aforesaid property. The plaintiff has now sought partition of
property No. J-13/9, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
3. The defendant has contested the suit and opposed
the application. The defendant has denied the alleged
relinquishment by late Smt. Chanan Devi in favour of the
plaintiff and has alleged that the plaintiff has fabricated the
document in this regard. On merits, it has been admitted
that the plaintiff is residing on the ground floor of House
No.J-13.9, Rajouri Garden, whereas the first floor of the
aforesaid property is in the possession of the defendant. As
regards roof of the property, it is alleged that the same is in
the possession of the defendant, who had raised
construction of the first floor of the property out of his
personal income and resources.
4. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in possession only of the
ground floor of the suit property. The possession of the first
floor admittedly is with the defendant and the lock on the
roof also is of the defendant. As regards the roof of the
house, admittedly the keys of the door leading to the roof is
with the defendant. This clearly shows that the roof of the
house, at present, is in exclusive possession of the
defendant. Since the plaintiff is not in physical possession
of the roof of the house, there can be no question of
granting any prohibitory injunction restraining the
defendant from interfering with the possession/joint
possession of the plaintiff with respect to the roof of the
house.
5. As far as the ground floor of the property is
concerned, the learned counsel for the defendant very
clearly undertakes that the defendant will not interfere with
the possession of the plaintiff with respect to the ground
floor of the suit property in any manner. Moreover, no
interim injunction with respect to the ground floor portion of
the suit property has been sought by the plaintiff.
6. In view of the undertaking given by the learned
counsel for the defendant, no injunction order is required to
be passed with respect to the ground floor of the suit
property.
7. Since the plaintiff is not in possession or even joint
possession of the roof, there can be no question of granting
any injunction restraining the defendant from interfering
with the possession of the plaintiff with respect to the roof.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
Any observation made in this order shall not affect
the decision of the suit in any manner.
(V.K. JAIN)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 30, 2010
Vk/Ag
