[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sudarshan Rani vs Ankur Sharma & Ors on 8 December, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 05.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 08.12.2025
+ FAO 183/2023 & CM APPL 37836/2023
SUDARSHAN RANI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
versus
ANKUR SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Subhash Kamboj, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. The present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with
Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC) assails
the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by the trial court in Civil Suit
No. 21/2022, whereby the application filed by plaintiff/appellant
under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed.
2. In the appeal, the parties herein shall be referred to in the
same rank as they are arrayed in the suit.
3. Brief facts necessary to adjudicate this appeal are:-The
plaintiff instituted the suit asserting that she is a co-sharer in
property bearing No. 137/1A, Gali No. 5, Than Singh Nagar,
Anand Parbat, Delhi (the suit property), which originally belonged
to her father, late Sh. Haveli Ram, who according to her died
intestate on 02.02.1983. It is the plaintiff's case that she had
inherited half right in the said suit property upon the demise of her
parents. It is also her case that, upon the death of her only sister,
Kamlesh Sharma, (defendant no.1's mother), on 09.09.2020, the
plaintiff continued to retain her undivided share in the property and
thus remained entitled to joint possession and enjoyment thereof.
3.1 As per the plaintiff's case, she has been in possession of a
room on the ground floor of the property where some of her
belongings, particularly a box containing jewellery, clothes and
documents were placed. According to the plaintiff, defendant no.
1, began asserting ownership over the entire property on the basis
of two disputed Wills; the first one dated 27.03.1981, purportedly
executed by the plaintiff's father, late Sh. Haveli Ram, allegedly
bequeathing the entire property solely to the mother of defendant
no. 1 and the second Will dated 08.02.2006, purportedly executed
by the latter in favour of defendant no. 1. The plaintiff asserts that
both the said Wills are false and fabricated, relying on which
defendant no. 1 executed a registered sale deed dated 26.10.2021
transferring the entire suit property to defendant nos. 2 and 3.
Subsequently, defendant no. 2 and 3 commenced demolition and
attempted to raise fresh construction forcing her to seek an interim
injunction to preserve the property pending adjudication of the
suit.
3.2 The defendants/respondents, on the other hand,
contended that late Haveli Ram had executed a Will dated
27.03.1981, bequeathing the entire property exclusively to
defendant no. 1's mother, and that by virtue of the will, the latter
became the absolute owner of the entire suit property during her
lifetime. It is also their case that upon the death of the mother of
defendant no. 1, exclusive title to the suit property devolved upon
the latter through a registered Will dated 08.02.2006. Defendant
nos. 2 and 3 assert that they are bona fide purchasers of the suit
property for consideration and that possession has been delivered
to them and that no right or possession has ever been held by the
plaintiff.
4. Vide the impugned order, the trial court held in favour of
the defendants by dismissing the application for temporary
injunction finding that the plaintiff failed to establish possession
over any part of the suit property and had failed to demonstrate a
prima facie case warranting any interference with the rights
asserted by the defendants. Consequently, balance of convenience
and irreparable injury did not lie in favour of the plaintiff.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this court assailing the
impugned order.
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the
defendants' entire claim of exclusive ownership is founded upon
two disputed Wills, namely, the Will dated 27.03.1981, allegedly
executed by the plaintiff's father and the Will dated 08.02.2006,
allegedly executed by defendant no. 1's mother. The learned
counsel would further submit that both the Wills are under serious
dispute and their validity is yet to be proved and that until the same
is proved, the plaintiff's status as co-sharer cannot be displaced.
The learned counsel further submitted that the since defendant no.
1 has already sold the property to defendant nos. 3 and 2, on the
basis of the said Wills, unless the status quo is maintained, the suit
property may undergo irreversible alteration, resulting in
multiplicity of litigation.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendants submit
that the appellant has sought for injunction solely based on an
unsubstantiated allegation that she had kept her belongings inside a
room in the property, which does not establish any possession. The
learned counsel further submitted that in the absence of any
possession or prima facie right, no interim order is warranted and
the trial court was right in declining the grant of injunction.
7. Heard both sides and perused the records.
8. On perusal of records, it is apparent that the dispute
between the parties mainly revolves around the effect and validity
of two Wills dated 27.03.1981 and 08.02.2006. While the plaintiff
has categorically disputed both the Wills, the defendants assert
exclusive ownership on the basis thereof. The limited issue before
this Court is whether the trial court was justified in declining the
interim protection to the plaintiff, pending adjudication of the suit.
The trial court declined the relief on the ground that the plaintiff
failed to establish a prima facie case or possession over the
property. The fact that the disputed property belonged to the father
of the plaintiff is not disputed. The first defendant is admittedly the
nephew of the plaintiff. The defendants set up a case of exclusive
ownership on the strength of two Wills, which is disputed by the
plaintiff. The question as to who is in possession of the property
can only be decided based on the evidence that would be led in by
the parties during trial. Defendant no.1 appears to have sold the
property to defendants 2 and 3. It is also the case of the plaintiff
that demolition and construction activities are being undertaken in
the property.
9. In the circumstances of the case, any further alienations or
alterations/constructions in the property during the pendency of the
suit would certainly prejudice the plaintiff in the event of her
success in the suit. Therefore, to preserve the subject matter of the
suit, this court finds it appropriate to direct the parties to maintain
status quo with respect to the suit property till the rival claims are
adjudicated by the trial court.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.05.2023 is set
aside and the appeal is allowed. It is clarified that nothing
contained in this order shall affect the merits of the case.
11. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 05, 2025/RN
