[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Saroj Rani vs Sumit Saluja & Ors on 15 December, 2025
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 15.12.2025
+ FAO 329/2022 and CM APPL. 55417/2022
SAROJ RANI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arun Baali and Ms. Arisha
Ahmad, Advocates.
versus
SUMIT SALUJA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rachit Gupta and Mr. Kuldeep
Kumar, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. This present appeal has been filed under Order XLIII Rule
1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure (the CPC) by defendant no.2 in
Civil Suit No. 917/2021 on the file of ADJ-07, Tiz Hazari Courts,
Delhi assailing the order dated 01.09.2022, whereby the
application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC by the
plaintiffs was allowed and the defendants, their family members,
and any other persons acting for and on their behalf have been
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 329/2022 Page 1
restrained from carrying out any illegal or unauthorized
constructions and from creating any third party interest in the suit
property till the final disposal of the related main suit.
2. Unless otherwise specifically stated, the parties hereinafter
shall be referred to as they were described in the original
proceedings.
3. In the plaint, it is alleged thus: The suit property (a
building consisting of ground, first & second floor along with roof
& land underneath on the plot bearing no.7, road no.23, in class D,
measuring 278.19 sq. yds., situated in East Punjabi Bagh. Village
Bassai Darapur, New Delhi-110026) was initially allotted to Late
Sh. Saran Dass Vohra on 19.08.1958 by the Refugee Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. and subsequently conveyed to him by
registered sale deed dated 26.02.1962. He transferred the property
to Sh. Inder Jit Narula by registered sale deed dated 15.01.1964.
Thereafter, Sh. Inder Jit Narula transferred ¾ share to his brothers
namely Sh. Joginder Lal Narula, Sh. Amrit Lal Narula, and Sh.
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 329/2022 Page 2
Balbir Chand Narula by registered sale deed dated 22.04.1965,
resulting in all four brothers holding equal shares 25% each. Then,
the Construction of a building was carried out in the suit property
in 1965 after obtaining sanctioned plans from (Municipal
Corporation of Delhi) MCD vide file no. 3346/B/65 dated
19.04.1965, though no formal partition ever took place.
3.1. Subsequently, Sh. Amrit Lal Narula sold 15 % share to
Sh. Joginder Lal Narula on 31.07.1993 and the remaining 10%
share to Sh. Inder Jit Narula on 27.04.1994. As a result, Sh.
Joginder Lal Narula held 40% share and was in possession of the
ground floor, Sh. Inder Jit Narula held 35% percent share and was
in possession of the first floor, and Sh. Balbir Chand Narula held
25% share and was in possession of the second floor with roof
rights. Sh. Inder Jit Narula sold his 35% share to Sh. Shyam
Sunder Juneja on 02.09.1996, who further sold the same to Sh. R
K Aggarwal and plaintiff no. 2, viz., Smt. Sunita Aggarwal vide
sale deed dated 25.11.1999. Upon the death of Sh. R K Aggarwal
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 329/2022 Page 3
intestate, his legal heirs, i.e., plaintiff no. 2 and her two daughters
became co-owners of the first floor of the suit property.
3.2. Sh. Joginder Lal Narula sold the entire ground floor
without roof rights to one Smt. Babita Malhotra on 24.06.2005,
who further sold it to plaintiff no.1, Sh. Sumit Saluja and Smt.
Neelam Saluja i.e., mother of plaintiff no. 1 on 18.12.2020.
Therefore, plaintiff no. 1 along with his mother are in possession
of the ground floor of the suit property, while plaintiff no. 2,
Sunita Aggarwal, together with the other legal heirs of R K
Aggarwal, is in possession of the first floor of the suit property.
3.3. Meanwhile, Sh. Balbir Chand Narula transferred the
entire second floor with roof rights to Sh. Khushi Ram Kukreja by
agreement to sell dated 11.09.2000. After the death of Sh. Khushi
Ram Kukreja intestate on 15.11.2003, his son, defendant no.1, Sh.
Mahinder Kukreja came in possession of the second floor and roof
and during 2005 - 2006 constructed a room with a toilet on the
roof.
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 329/2022 Page 4
3.4. During the year 2020, defendant no.1 carried out illegal
and unauthorized constructions on the terrace by raising rooms,
bathroom, and kitchen, encroaching upon the shaft area and
making structural changes without permission. Complaints were
made to the police and North Delhi Municipal Corporation
(NDMC), defendant no. 3, but, no effective action was taken.
Defendant no.1, thereafter, sold the second floor to defendant no.
2, Smt. Saroj Rani on 08.04.2021, describing the illegal
construction over the terrace as a third floor. In October and
November 2021, defendant no.2 commenced further unauthorized
construction. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to stop the
construction and also approached the authorities concerned
regarding the construction being carried out without any
sanctioned plan; however, all such efforts went futile.
3.5. In consequence, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking
declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction, and damages,
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 329/2022 Page 5
alleging that the sale deed executed between defendant no.1 and
defendant no.2 is false and fabricated, intended to legalise the
illegal construction on the terrace by describing it as a third floor,
aimed at unlawfully claiming absolute ownership, and made to
create third party interest.
3.6. The plaintiffs also filed an application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 before the trial court seeking an interim
injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out any illegal
or unauthorized constructions in the suit property and from
creating any third-party interest therein till the disposal of the suit.
3.7. Per contra, the defendants contended that the suit was
filed to pressurize them into accepting the plaintiffs' proposal to
demolish and reconstruct the entire building, while offering the
defendants only one floor in place of the two floors in their
possession. They denied having raised any unauthorized
constructions and asserted that only permissible repairs were
carried out, with all existing construction dating back to the year
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 329/2022 Page 6
2000. They further claimed that the third floor was constructed
prior to the cut-off date under the Special Protection Act, rendering
it immune from punitive actions from Municipal Authority. On
these grounds, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit.
4. After hearing both sides and perusing the materials on
record, the trial court, vide order dated 01.09.2022, allowed the
application and granted interim injunction insofar as the plaintiffs,
being in possession and owners of the ground floor and first floor
of the suit property, would be adversely affected by any
unauthorized construction or creation of third party interest,
particularly, when the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in
favour of defendant no.2 is under challenge and further directed
the defendants, their family members, or any person acting for and
on their behalf to be restrained from carrying out any illegal or
unauthorized construction in the suit property and also from
creating any third party interest therein till the final disposal of the
suit.
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 329/2022 Page 7
5. Aggrieved by the decision vide order dated 01.09.2022,
defendant no. 2 has preferred the present appeal.
6. Heard both sides.
7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/
defendant no. 2, when he relies on a registered sale deed in support
of his claim over the property, the trial court ought not to have
allowed the prayer for interim injunction. It is also submitted that
the fact that a sale deed exists in his favour has been admitted in
paragraph 9 of the plaint and, therefore, in such circumstances,
there was no justification for the impugned order.
8. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondents / plaintiffs that the sale deeds in favour of defendant
no. 2 have been challenged in the suit. According to the
respondents / plaintiffs, they have 75% share in the disputed
property whereas defendant no. 1 has only 25% share in the
property. Despite the same, a sale deed has been executed by
defendant no. 1 claiming to have 50% share in the property in
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 329/2022 Page 8
favour of defendant no. 2. The sale deed has been challenged in the
suit. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order that has been
passed by the trial court calling for an interference by this Court,
goes the argument.
9. The extent of share of the parties in the property and
whether the sale deed relied on by the rival contestants do actually
confer title as claimed by them is a matter that requires to be
adjudicated by the trial court based on the evidence led during the
trial court. The order that has been granted by the trial court is only
to the extent of not creating any third-party interest in the property
or from making any constructions. This order, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, is necessary to preserve the subject
matter till the trial court is finally able to adjudicate on the rival
claims. I do not find any infirmity, calling for an interference by
this Court.
10. The appeal sans merit is, thus, dismissed. Applications, if
any, pending, shall stand closed.
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 329/2022 Page 9
11. The trial court shall endeavor to dispose of the case at the
earliest.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 15, 2025
kd/RN
Signed By:KOMAL FAO 329/2022 Page 10
