S. Harinder Singh vs Master Chiranji Singh & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5334 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                Judgment reserved on: 16.08.2012

%                               Judgment delivered on: 06.09.2012

+      RFA(OS) No. 22/2008 and C.M. No. 3754/2012

       S. HARINDER SINGH                         ..... Appellant
                     Through:         Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate
                                      with Mr. Ravi Sikri & Mr. Jatin
                                      Sehgal, Advocates.
                      versus

       MASTER CHIRANJI SINGH & ANR.       ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. V.P. Singh, Senior Adv with Mr.
                              Sunil Narula, Advocate.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

                               JUDGMENT

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against judgment dated 29.02.2008 in C.S. (OS) No.413/2004. The said suit had been preferred by the respondents herein seeking relief of permanent injunction against the appellant with regard to first floor of property bearing No.D-10, NDSE-II, New Delhi-110048. The appellant, on the basis of arbitral award dated 04.04.2003 made by Mr. Haji Ayamuddin, considered himself as the absolute owner of the entire suit property and had started raising construction.

2. However, the Ld. Single Judge vide order dated 29.02.2008 passed in OMP No.261/2003, set aside the said award. Consequently, the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment decreed the suit of the respondent in the following terms:

"3. Since both the parties are owners of 50% of the property each therefore, FAR can be consumed by both the parties in the same proportion. I consider that within this limit, Defendant is at liberty to raise construction after getting the plan sanctioned from MCD. The Plaintiffs have no right to restrain Defendant from utilizing his 50% of the FAR. However, Defendant cannot raise unauthorised construction.

4. The Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed to the extent that Defendant is restrained from raising a construction, without a proper sanctioned plan. The Defendant has a right to utilise 50% of the FAR and within that FAR if he gets a plan sanctioned from MCD within his 50% portion the Plaintiffs cannot have objection. With these directions, the suit is disposed of."

3. The setting aside of the arbitral award has been upheld by us vide separate judgment of even date in FAO (OS) No.134/2008, titled S. Harinder Singh v. S. Nirmal Singh & Ors. In view of the same, the present appeal does not survive. The same is accordingly dismissed.

(VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE

(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 06, 2012 sr