Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 229/26
NARENDER
Vs.
SUSHILA DEVI
16.07.2026
Present: Sh. Virender Rajput, Ld. counsel for plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff.
Sh. Bharat Saini and Ms. Babli Tyagi, Ld. counsels
for defendant alongwith defendant.
Vakalatnama already filed on behalf of defendant,
taken on record.
Defendant already filed WS. Copy supplied.
Arguments advanced at length on an application u/o
39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC.
Orders during course of the day.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
16.07.2026
At 02:32 PM.
Present: None.
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application under
Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for
restraining the defendant from creating any third party interest &
restraining defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the
Civ Suit 229/26
Narender Vs. Sushila Devi
	Page No. 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
suit property bearing no. K-4/28, Gali No. 26, Gangotri Vihar,
West Ghonda, Delhi, as shown in Red Colour in site plan.
2. In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff no. 1 is
legally adopted son of defendant and late Sh. Asha Ram. It is
further stated that plaintiff no. 2 is legally wedded wife of
plaintiff no. 1. It is further stated that biological father of plaintiff
no. 1 is the real young brother of Late Sh. Asha Ram. It is further
stated that during the years 1995-1996, the biological father of
plaintiff no. 1 purchased a property bearing No. K-7/14, Gali No.
22, Gangotri Vihar, West Ghonda, Delhi from his own funds. It is
further stated that in the year 2005, defendant and her husband
having no biological children, orally adopted plaintiff no. 1 with
the consent of his biological parents. It is further stated that in the
year 2006, Late Sh. Asha Ram expressed his desire to purchase a
residential property and stated to biological father of plaintiff no.
1 that he did not have sufficient financial resources. It is further
stated that biological father of plaintiff no. 1, being younger
brother, agreed to financially help the defendant and her husband
pursant to oral settlement. It is further stated that as per the said
oral settlement, it was agreed that late Sh. Asha Ram would
purchase a residential property and the title documents would be
executed in favour of defendant and later on, defendant will
execute documents in favour of plaintiff no. 1 as and when he
would attain the age of 21 years. It is further stated that the
biologicial father of plaintiff no. 1 paid substantial amount asked
by defendant and her husband. It is further stated that defendant
Civ Suit 229/26
Narender Vs. Sushila Devi
	Page No. 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
and her husband purchased the property bearing no. K-4/28, Gali
No. 26, Gangotri Vihar, West Ghonda, Delhi, admeasuring
approximately 136 sq. yards from its erstwhile owner after
paying the full consideration amount and the relevant sale
documents were executed in the name of the defendant. It is
further stated a registered adoption deed dated 18.12.2008 was
duly executed, whereby plaintiff no. 1 became the legally
adopted son of defendant and her husband. It is further stated that
in the year 2010, defendant and her husband late Sh. Asha Ram
constructed the abovesaid property consisting of ground floor
and first floor and one room at second floor i.e. suit property. It
is further stated that the biological father of plaintiff helped them
in construction of suit property. It is further stated that plaintiff
no. 1 was residing in the suit property as adopted son. It is further
submitted that on 02.05.2021, plaintiff no. 1 solemnized his
marriage with plaintiff no. 2 and thereafter, plaintiff no. 2 started
residing at first floor of suit property alongwith plaintiff no. 1. It
is further stated that Asha Ram expired on 30.04.2026 but
plaintiff was not allowed by defendant and her associates to
perform last rites. It is further stated that defendant started gave
threat to plaintiffs with forcible and illegal dispossession from
suit property.
3. In reply/WS filed by defendant, it is stated that plaintiffs
have not come before court with clean hands and have
suppressed the correct facts. It is further stated that in the year
2008, husband of defendant came to know about adoption,
Civ Suit 229/26
Narender Vs. Sushila Devi
	Page No. 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
therefore, husband of defendant approached to his real brother
namely Ram Swaroop and his wife Smt. Sunita and as per will
and consent, defendant and her husband taken the plaintiff no. 1
in adoption on 19.12.2008 and adoption deed was also registered.
It is further stated that defendant and her husband gave full love
and affection to plaintiff no. 1 and after the age of majority got
solemnized his marriage with plaintiff no. 2. However, after
marriage, behaviour of plaintiff nos. 1 & 2 became changed
towards defendant and her husband and started harassing,
humilitating, abusing and torturuing the defendant and her
husband and pressurised to transfer the property in the name of
plaintiffs. It is further stated that seeing the malafide intention,
husband of plaintiff already severed all their relations with
plaintiffs and debarred them from all the movable and
immovable properties. It is further stated that husband of
defendant also filed an eviction application before Ld. DJ. It is
further stated that on 24.04.2026, plaintiff no. 1 started quarelling
and plaintiff no. 1 pushed husband of defendant due to which he
sustained internal injury in his head. It is further stated that due to
said injury, on 27.04.2026, condition of husband of defendant
became deteriorated and was taken to hospital and after two days
of treatment on 30.04.2026, husband of defendant was expired. It
is further stated that defendant made a complaint to concerned
police station on 05.05.2026 but no action was taken. Thereafter,
on 29.05.2026, defendant made complaint to DCP concerned. It
is further stated that husband of defendant never expresses his
desire to purchase a property to father of plaintiff no. 1 as
Civ Suit 229/26
Narender Vs. Sushila Devi
	Page No. 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
alleged. Prior to year 2008, defendant and her husband have no
concern with the plaintiff no. 1 except the relations of nephew. It
is further stated that husband of defendant himself purchased the
property in the name of defendant. It is further stated that the said
property was purchased in the year 2006 and the defendant and
her husband started construction in the property in the year 2007
and completed the construction upto November, 2008.
4. Submissions have already been heard. File perused.
5. Perusal of record shows that plaintiff no. 2 is daughter-in-
law of defendant Ms. Sushila Devi. Plaintiff no. 1 was adopted
vide registered adoption deed dated 09.12.2008 and plaintiff no.
2 happens to be wife of plaintiff no. 1, so plaintiff no. 2 is having
the right to stay in the suit property as a matrimonial home unless
the proper orders are passed with due procedure of law for
eviction of plaintiff, so there is prima facie case in favour of
plaintiff. Since, the present suit pertains to immovable property,
so plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be
compensated in terms of money, if the present application is not
allowed. Accordingly, balance of convenience also tilts in favour
of plaintiff and against the defendant. In view of above, the
application u/o 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by plaintiff is allowed
to the extent that the defendant shall not dispossess the plaintiffs
forcibly and illegally from the first floor of the suit property
bearing no. D-4/28, Gali No. 26, Gangotri Vihar, West Ghonda
Delhi, as shown red colour in the site plan till final disposal of
Civ Suit 229/26
Narender Vs. Sushila Devi
	Page No. 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
the suit. Nothing stated herein above shall tantamount to be my
expression on merits of the case.
Matter is adjourned for replication, admission-denial
and framing of issues.
It be relisted on 18.08.2026.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
16.07.2026
Civ Suit 229/26
Narender Vs. Sushila Devi
	Page No. 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --