Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY SH. SAHIL KHURMI
CNR No:-DLCT030007392024
CS SCJ No.228/24
(1) SH. SACHIN AGGARWAL
S/O SH. RAVINDER AGGARWAL
R/O 58-A, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI-7.
(2) SH. SANJEEV SEHGAL
S/O SH. RAJINDER KUMAR
R/O 37-A/2/38, STREET NO.10,
NEW GOVIND PURA,
KRISHNA NAGAR, DELHI.
(3) SH. GAURAV BANSAL
S/O SH. GAURI SHANKAR BANSAL,
R/O 5285/7, KRISHNA NAGAR,
NEAR KHALSA COLLEGE,
KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005.
(4) SMT. SUMAN CHANDAK
W/O SH. SANJAY CHANDAK,
R/O 4325-A, WARD NO.XIII,
GALI BHAUJI, BAHADURGARH ROAD,
PAHARI DHIRAJ, SADAR BAZAR,
DELHI-110006
(5) SH. SAURABH BANSAL
S/O SH. KISHAN KUMAR BANSAL
R/O 5285/7, KRISHNA NAGAR,
CS SCJ No.228/24 Page No. 1 of 8
-- 1 of 8 --
NEAR KHALSA COLLEGE,
KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI-110005.
FOR HIMSELF AND ATTORNEY OF PLAINTIFF NO.1 TO 4
...Plaintiffs
Versus
M/S ATTAR SINGH SWAROOP SINGH
SHOP NO.535, GROUND FLOOR,
PROPERTY NO. 530-35, WARD NO.XIV,
GALI BAJAJAN, SADAR BAZAR, DELHI-6
...Defendant
Date of institution of suit 02.02.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved 04.06.2024
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 06.06.2024
Decision DECREED
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS:
1. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the plaint are
that the plaintiffs have purchased the property bearing No.535
situated out of property No.530-535, Ward No.XIV, Gali Bajajan,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-6, known as Darvesh Building (
hereinafter
referred to as suit property) from its previous owner vide
registered sale deed bearing registration No.9296 in Book No.1,
Volume No.9285 on pages 128 to 139 dated 28.07.2022.
2. That the defendant is the tenant in the suit property. That
the plaintiffs after purchasing the suit property sent a legal notice
dated 20.09.2022 to the defendant intimating him that the
plaintiffs have purchased the suit property and further requested
the defendant to execute the lease/rent deed.
CS SCJ No.228/24 Page No. 2 of 8
-- 2 of 8 --
3. That despite service of the aforesaid legal demand notice,
defendant did not pay any heed and failed to make payment of
arrears of the rent and execute a fresh lease/sale deed.
4. That after receiving the legal notice, the defendant is
contemplating to create third party interest in the suit property by
transferring the suit property to some other person.
5. That on 25.01.2024, the plaintiffs through their attorney
i.e. plaintiff No.5 visited the suit property and was shocked to see
that the defendant was discussing and negotiating with some
unknown person to hand over the possession of the suit property
and when objected by plaintiff No.5, he threatened to transfer the
suit property. Hence, the present suit.
6. It is pertinent to mention that despite service on
28.03.2024, defendant did not appear and no written statement
was filed within the statutory period and defendant was
proceeded ex-parte. It is also pertinent to mention that the
plaintiffs vide the present suit has prayed for a decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents,
servants and associates from sub-letting, alienating and
transferring and parting with the possession of the suit property
and creating third party interest in respect of the suit property.
EX-PARTE EVIDENCE:-
7. In support of their case, plaintiffs got examined plaintiff
No.5 i.e. Sh. Saurabh Bansal as PW-1. PW-1 tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-/1.
PW-1 relied on the following documents:-
Ex. PW1/A Site plan
Ex. PW1/BGPA dated 08.01.2024 (OSR)
Mark A Photocopy of Release Deed dated 19.06.1997
CS SCJ No.228/24 Page No. 3 of 8
-- 3 of 8 --
Ex. PW1/DCopy of Sale Deed dated 27.09.2012 (OSR)
Ex. PW1/E Copy of Rectification Deed dated 19.07.2013
Ex. PW1/F Copy of Sale Deed dated 22.07.2022 registered
on 28.07.2022 (OSR)
Ex. PW1/GOffice copy of legal notice dated 23.12.2023
Ex. PW1/HPostal receipt
8. Thereafter plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated
30.04.2023 upon separate statement of plaintiff No.5. Thereafter
the matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. Final arguments in the present matter were heard at length
on behalf of plaintiff and I have perused the record of the case
carefully.
LAW APPLICABLE
10. Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with
Perpetual injunction. It provides that a perpetual injunction may
be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation
existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication. The
Court issues a perpetual injunction to stop someone (defendant)
from breaking an obligation that they have towards the plaintiff.
Such an obligation could either be stated explicitly or inferred
from the situation. The main intention is to ensure the plaintiff’s
right and also to make such an obligation fulfilled through
granting a perpetual injunction. The court can grant a perpetual
injunction when the defendant is causing or about to cause harm
to the plaintiff’s legal rights or enjoyment of property. The
perpetual injunction plays a very significant role in protecting the
CS SCJ No.228/24 Page No. 4 of 8
-- 4 of 8 --
legal rights of the party. Perpetual injunction stands as a
testament to the legal system’s commitment to safeguarding
rights, resolving disputes and providing an avenue for individuals
and entities to seek redress for infringement upon their interests.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
11. The plaintiff claiming the relief of perpetual injunction has
to establish the breach of an obligation or infringement of a legal
right. In the present case, the plaintiff has claimed ownership of
the suit property on the basis of sale deed and the defendant is
stated to be a tenant in the suit property. The plaintiff has
apprehension that the defendant may create third party interest in
the suit property which may breach the obligation existing in his
favour and infringe his legal right of ownership.
12. In order to fortify and substantiate their case, plaintiffs
have filed on record a bare perusal of Ex. PW-1/D i.e. sale deed
dated 27.09.2012 (OSR) shows that (i) Rajeev Nagpal, (ii) Monty
Nagpal & (iii) Smt. Gunjan Nagpal have purchased the suit
property from Sh. Vinay Thakur.
13. A perusal of the copy of rectification deed dated
19.07.2023 which is Ex. PW-1/E (OSR) shows that it is
specifically mentioned in the rectification deed that due to typing
mistake in the sale deed at page No.4, the tenants name was not
mentioned which is mentioned as follows:-
(i) M/s Outon Mal,
(ii) Smt. Sunita Sehgal & Rajinder Sehgal,
(iii) Sh. Pahu Mal,
(iv) M/s Attar Singh Swaroop Singh,
CS SCJ No.228/24 Page No. 5 of 8
-- 5 of 8 --
(v) M/s Outan Mal,
(vi) Sh. Lakhmi Chand Thakur,
(vii) M/s Jaycko Knit Ind.
The name of the defendant is duly mentioned in point No.4
in the rectification deed also.
14. Plaintiffs have filed on record the site plan Ex. PW-1/A. A
bare perusal of the copy of sale deed dated 22.07.2022 which is
Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR) transpires that the plaintiffs have purchased
the suit property from the persons namely (i) Rajeev Nagpal, (ii)
Monty Nagpal & (iii) Smt. Gunjan Nagpal and it is specifically
mentioned in the said sale deed that the property is occupied by
different tenants at a nominal rent for the last many years i.e.
(i) M/s Outon Mal,
(ii) Smt. Sunita Sehgal & Rajinder Sehgal,
(iii) Sh. Pahu Mal,
(iv) M/s Attar Singh Swaroop Singh,
(v) M/s Outan Mal,
(vi) Sh. Lakhmi Chand Thakur
(vii) M/s Jaycko Knit Ind.
15. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant/Attar Singh is
mentioned at point No.4 in the above-mentioned list. Thus,
plaintiff has proved that the defendant is a tenant in respect of the
suit property.
16. From the perusal of the pleadings, the plaintiffs have duly
proved the chain of documents of title/ownership as they has
placed on record the copy of sale deed dated 28.07.2022 vide
which they purchased the property from sellers namely (i) Rajeev
Nagpal, (ii) Monty Nagpal & (iii) Smt. Gunjan Nagpal and also
placed on record the copy of sale deed dated 27.09.2012 as per
CS SCJ No.228/24 Page No. 6 of 8
-- 6 of 8 --
which, the persons i.e. (i) Rajeev Nagpal, (ii) Monty Nagpal &
(iii) Smt. Gunjan Nagpal have purchased the suit property from
Sh. Vinay Thakur.
17. Thus, the plaintiffs have been successful in proving their
case on the touchstone as preponderance of probability.
18. Plaintiffs have also filed on record copy of legal notice
dated 23.12.2023 vide which the defendant was told about the
purchase of the suit property by the plaintiffs and the defendant
was also informed to pay the arrears of rent and execute a fresh
lease/rent deed, which the defendant failed to do. Moreover, the
defendant did not appear despite service of summons. Thus, the
entire case of the plaintiff goes unrebutted. The plaintiff has
proved that his legal right to ownership may be
breached/infringed if the defendant created third party interest in
the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to
perpetual/permanent injunction as enshrined under Section 38 of
Specific Relief Act, 1963.
RELIEF
19. In view of aforesaid discussion, the present suit is decreed
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The
defendant, his agents, servants and associates are restrained from
sub-letting, alienating and transferring and parting with the
possession or creating third party interest in the suit property i.e.,
property bearing No.535 situated out of property No.530-535,
Ward No.XIV, Gali Bajajan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-6, known as
Darvesh Building.
CS SCJ No.228/24 Page No. 7 of 8
-- 7 of 8 --
20. No order as to cost.
21. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
22. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 06.06.2024.
(SAHIL KHURMI)
CIVIL JUDGE-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
CS SCJ No.228/24 Page No. 8 of 8
-- 8 of 8 --