Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 9 CS DJ 624/24
AKANSHA JAIN Vs. SHOBHA JAIN
08.01.2025
Present: Sh. Sandeep Jindal with Ms. Sarika Mittal, Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff with Sh. Dinesh Jain, father-in-law of plaintiff.
Mohd. Ahmad with Sh. Monu Singh, Mohd. Hamza
Qureshi, Ld. Counsel for defendants.
Replication filed. Copy supplied.
2. Ld. Counsel for the defendants raised issue with regard to
maintainability of the present suit. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff states that
there is no application filed in this regard. However, ld. Counsel for the
defendants states that said objections have been taken in the WS.
Arguments on the said points heard.
3. Ld. Counsel for the defendant raised certain points with
regard to issue of limitation, seeking no relief of possession, no
quantification of the amount of Rs. 41 Lakhs, not filing of original MoU/
agreement etc.
4. A stay application is already on record. Arguments on the
said application also heard.
5. The points raised by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants are
very important but the plaintiff need to be given an opportunity to counter
the same. Accordingly, a liberty is granted to the defenadnt to file
separate application on these point in the meantime with advance copy.
-- 1 of 3 --
6. The plaintiff claimed that he entered into an agreement with
the defendant no.1 and 2 for renovation of some work in the
property/house of the defendants and in lieu of the amount spent for the
said renovation work by the plaintiff, 25% share of the said property was
agreed to be given to the plaintiff.
7. In the WS and on oral query raised by this court, the Counsel
for the defendants admitted thumb impression/signatures of the
defendants on the said MoU/agreement but he disputed the contents
thereof. It is also claimed that the said documents were executed under
force and misrepresentation and thumb impression/signatures were taken
on blank papers.
8. As per Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, if the
thumb impressions/signatures are admitted on a document, the onus lies
upon the person who alleged that the said documents were not executed
by her/him.
9. In the opinion of this court, at this stage, the plaintiff has a
prima facie good case on the basis of said documents. Even now original
MoU and attached documents (running into 10 pages) are filed on record.
10. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defendants
that the said MoU/agreement is not a notarized nor registered document.
As per law, an agreement creating any right in a property is not required
to be registered for the purpose of seeking the relief of specific
-- 2 of 3 --
performance like an agreement to sell. Moreover, the said plea will be
examined after holding trail.
11. On the basis of the pleadings on record and the aforesaid
observations, the stay application is allowed and the defendants are
restrained to create any 3rd party interest in the suit property by way of
transfer, sale, gift deed, lease or any other mode of transfer of property to
the extent of share of the plaintiff i.e. 25% without permission of this
court till further orders or the disposal of the case.
12. Put up for further proceeding on 04.03.2025. Copy of the
order be given dasti, if desired.
(Naresh Kumar Laka)
DJ-07, Central, THC
08.01.2025
-- 3 of 3 --