[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Ms Pooja Arora & Anr vs Meenakshi Gupta on 4 December, 2025
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 04.12.2025
+ FAO 165/2023 and CM APPL. 35362/2023 & CM APPL.
35363/2023
MS POOJA ARORA & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Dhiraj Sachdeva, Advocate.
versus
MEENAKSHI GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Rai and Ms. Amisha Ray,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. The present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the CPC), assails the order dated
08.06.2023 passed by the learned ADJ-06, West District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No. 1032/2022, whereby the trial court
directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit
property.
2. In the appeal, the parties herein shall be referred to in the
DHAWAN FAO 165/2023 Page 1
same rank as they are arrayed in the original suit.
3. Brief facts necessary for adjudicating this appeal are as
follows:- The sole plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit seeking
cancellation of a Sale Deed dated 17.02.2021 executed in favour of
defendant no. 1/appellant no. 1 herein, along with reliefs of
possession and permanent injunction. The plaintiff claims title to
the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 04.03.2021
and asserts that she was in control of the suit property prior to the
alleged acts of trespass and demolition attributed to defendant no.
2/appellant no.2, leading to complaints to the local police.
3.1. It is the defendants' case that defendant no. 1 is the
lawful owner of the suit property by virtue of Sale deed dated
17.02.2021, which was executed by the erstwhile owner Shri B.D.
Kakkar. They assert that they have been in continuous, peaceful
and uninterrupted possession of the property since 1996. It is also
their case that the plaintiff's alleged chain of title, including the
DHAWAN FAO 165/2023 Page 2
documents executed in favour of her vendor, is forged, fabricated,
unsupported by consideration and incapable of conveying any
valid right or interest in the suit property.
4. The trial court, while observing that both the parties assert
their title to the suit property on the basis of registered documents
and that the question of possession is also in dispute, held vide the
impugned order that the circumstances require the property to be
preserved and thus directed the parties to maintain status quo until
the suit is finally decreed by the trial court.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants have approached this
court challenging the impugned order.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants
that the trial court failed to appreciate that defendant no.1 is the
lawful owner of the suit property by virtue of Sale Deed dated
17.02.2021. The learned counsel emphasised that the said sale
deed is earlier in point of time than the plaintiff's sale deed dated
DHAWAN FAO 165/2023 Page 3
04.03.2021, and hence, by the strength of Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, no valid title could have been
conveyed to the plaintiff thereafter.
6.1 The learned counsel for the defendants would also submit
that defendant no.1 was put into possession pursuant to the
registered sale deed and that the trial court has ignored the material
fact that, as on 04.03.2021, i.e., when the latter sale deed was
executed, the vendor of the plaintiff, had no subsisting right, title
or interest to convey. It is submitted that the plaintiff's documents
are entirely fabricated, false and hold no legal validity.
6.2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
defendants that the plaintiff never had any possession of the suit
property and that the allegations of trespass and demolition are
unfounded. The learned counsel would also submit that the
plaintiff's deed is sham as it is without consideration, and that the
plaintiff herself admitted before the investigating officer in Crime
DHAWAN FAO 165/2023 Page 4
No. 449/2021, Hari Nagar Police Station, West Delhi. It is
asserted that the plaintiff's chain of title is a result of manipulation
and forged documentation, whereas the defendants' chain flows
directly from the original owner through valid documents. The
learned counsel submitted that the trial court has wrongly allowed
the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC,
while dismissing the defendant's application under Order VII Rule
11 CPC and that the status quo order restrains the rightful owners
from using their own property.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff urged that
the suit property is owned by the plaintiff on the basis of a valid
registered Sale Deed dated 04.03.2021, and that the plaintiff was
compelled to file the suit when the defendants began asserting
ownership on the basis of sham documents. It is submitted that the
defendants disturbed the plaintiff's continuous possession and
attempted to create third-party rights in the property.
DHAWAN FAO 165/2023 Page 5
7.1 The learned counsel for the plaintiff, relying on the
dictum of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd.,
MANU/SC/1222/2011and Manik Majumder v. Dipak Kumar
Saha, MANU/SC/0021/2023, would contend that the defendants'
claim of title through the documents such as General Power of
Attorney dated 08.02.1996 and an agreement to sell is untenable in
law, as such unregistered documents do not convey any valid right,
title or interest.
7.2 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that
the trial court had itself noted that both sides rely on registered
documents, and in such circumstances, status quo was necessary to
prevent any kind of irreversible harm to the suit property. It is
submitted that the defendants are trying to have their defence
upheld without trial and have preferred this appeal with an
intention to delay the proceedings.
8. Heard both sides.
DHAWAN FAO 165/2023 Page 6
9. On perusal of the records, it emerges that the dispute
between the parties, arise from their competing assertions of
ownership and possession of the suit property. While the plaintiff
asserts that their vendor had valid title to convey, and that she was
holding control of the property prior to the defendants' alleged
interference, on the other hand the defendants contend that their
sale deed is prior in date and that they alone, were in possession
and that the plaintiff's documents are forged and without any
consideration. Both the parties are challenging the legitimacy of
the other's title chain and possession, raising disputed factual
questions that can be resolved only after evidence is led by both
the parties.
10. The principal issue that falls for determination before this
court in the present appeal is confined to determine whether the
trial court has committed any error in directing the parties to
maintain status quo with respect to the suit property, pending
DHAWAN FAO 165/2023 Page 7
adjudication of the suit.
11. Having considered the rival submissions and the
impugned order, this court finds no reason to interfere with the
discretion exercised by the trial court. This court is of the opinion
that, the grant of an interim direction to maintain status quo, in a
situation where both the parties rely on registered instruments,
where possession is disputed and where allegations of fraud and
fabrication are levelled by both the parties, is a balanced measure
intended to preserve the property till the rights of the parties are
adjudicated upon.
12. Therefore, this court is inclined to affirm the status quo
granted by the trial court as preservation of the suit property in its
existing condition is necessary to avoid any kind of irreversible
prejudice to either side. At the same time, since the continuance of
the order of status quo imposes restrictions on both the parties, the
trial court will endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as
DHAWAN FAO 165/2023 Page 8
possible.
13. It is clarified that nothing contained in this order shall
affect the merits of the case.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in the above said
terms. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 04, 2025
RN/ Kd
DHAWAN FAO 165/2023 Page 9
