Monday, February 26, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Delhi court grants interim relief to man in property dispute case, says possession considered ninth point of ownership

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

A Delhi court has granted interim relief to a plaintiff in a property matter on the grounds that possession was considered as the ninth point of ownership. 

The order was passed recently by Disha Singh, Civil Judge, West, Tis Hazari Court on an application filed by plaintiff Mangal Singh under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 

The court further restrained Defendant No. 1 Raj Kumar from forcibly entering, creating any third party interest and trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the property located in Pandav Nagar, Delhi.

The court noted that in the present matter, the very lis was with respect to seeking declaration of ownership on the strength of certain documents filed and certain documents, which are within the possession of the defendants. Further, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and it was a settled law that possession was considered as the ninth point of ownership. 

Without getting into the merits of the case, the Civil Judge said she was of the opinion that the plaintiff has triable issues against the defendant and the balance of convenience required that in the interim, the peaceful possession of the plaintiff was protected so that the suit was not rendered infructuous. 

Further, the scale of balance of convenience was tilted in favour of the plaintiff, so much so that if the interim relief was not granted to the plaintiff, the same may cause irreparable loss and extreme hardship, in case the defendant side dispossessed the plaintiff or created any third party interest in the suit property.

The Civil Judge, while allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, listed the matter for February 19, 2024 for admission/denial and framing of issues.

Advocate Aanchal Buddhiraja, appearing for the defendants, including defendant no 1 Raj Kumar, submitted that they have no objection if the application was allowed and a status quo was maintained over the suit property. 

However, the court noted after perusal of the application that the said application has been filed seeking interim relief against the defendant, thereby restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest in the suit property and dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.

It said it was an admitted position between the parties that the plaintiff was in the possession of the suit property. The present suit has been filed seeking the relief of declaration of ownership, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant. 

It said prima facie perusal of the material available on record filed by the plaintiff transpired that the plaintiff has filed certain relevant documents in the form of gift deed dated March 19, 2010, GPA in favour of the plaintiff dated September 14, 2009, certain police complaints. 

The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction to the effect that the defendants may be directed to hand over the chain of title documents of the suit property being the owner.

The provision under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC provided relief of interim injunction to preserve the suit property and prevent multiplicity of the proceedings between the parties, restraining the defendants from doing any acts by taking law in their hands, which may render the suit infructuous and further to protect the interest of the party whose legal rights were being infringed, noted the court. 

It said at the stage of deciding an interim application, this Court was required to consider the existence of prima facie case, preventing irreparable loss to the party aggrieved and in whose favour the balance of convenience of equity and justice stands tilted.

In the present matter, the very lis was with respect to seeking declaration of ownership on the strength of certain documents filed and certain documents, which are within the possession of the defendants. Further, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and it was a settled law that possession was considered as the ninth point of ownership. 

Without getting into the merits of the case, the Civil Judge said she was of the opinion that the plaintiff has triable issues against the defendant and the balance of convenience required that in the interim, the peaceful possession of the plaintiff was protected so that the suit was not rendered infructuous. 

Further, the scale of balance of convenience was tilted in favour of the plaintiff, so much so that if the interim relief was not granted to the plaintiff, the same may cause irreparable loss and extreme hardship, in case the defendant side dispossessed the plaintiff or created any third party interest in the suit property.

The Civil Judge, while allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, listed the matter for February 19, 2024 for admission/denial and framing of issues.

The court noted that the matter was received back as ‘non-starter’ from the Mediation Centre. It further noted that the cost imposed vide order dated September 18, 2023 was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff side. 

Regarding another application filed by the defendants under Order 8 Rule 1 A seeking to place additional documents on record, the Civil Judge allowed it on the grounds that issues have not been framed yet and the present matter was at the preliminary stage only. 

Advocate Gagan Gandhi, appearing for the plaintiff, submitted that they have no objection if the same was allowed since the additional document was an FIR against the plaintiff and in any way it would be a matter of record.

The Tis Hazari Court noted that an affidavit of admission/denial has been filed on behalf of both the sides. Perusal of the said admission/denial transpired that no reasons have been assigned by either of the parties while denying the documents. 

The Civil Judge granted liberty to both the parties to file additional affidavits of admission/denials assigning the due cause while denying the concerned documents. 

(Case title: Mangal Singh vs Raj Kumar)

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.
spot_img

News Update