Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Sale of Disputed Property: Protecting Rights During Litigation Essential

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on property rights and the scope of injunctions, the Delhi High Court yesterday dismissed an appeal against a temporary injunction restraining the sale of a disputed property. The Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja, emphasized the importance of maintaining the status quo in property disputes during ongoing litigation.

The case, “Ramesh Kumar Sharma And Anr vs Usha Nindawat”, centered around a dispute over a property in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, following the death of the property owner. The appellants, Ramesh Kumar Sharma and another party, were prevented from selling the property by an earlier court order, which they challenged in the High Court.

In their judgment, the Justices observed, “The primary object of the grant of temporary injunction is to maintain status quo, protecting the suit property till the adjudication of the rights of the litigating parties.” This principle was crucial in their decision to uphold the lower court’s order.

The case had its roots in a contention that the appellants had acquired the property through a sale deed, allegedly based on a fraudulently executed relinquishment deed. The respondent, Usha Nindawat, claimed her lawful share of the property, leading to the original suit for partition, declaration, and permanent injunction.

The court’s decision further clarified the application of legal principles in granting injunctions. “The exercise of discretion by the trial court in deciding an application for temporary injunction will not be interfered with by the appellate court except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely,” the Bench noted.

The legal fraternity sees this judgment as a reaffirmation of the courts’ approach to protecting property rights in the face of litigation and disputes. The Bench’s decision and its rationale are expected to have a significant impact on similar cases in the future.

The appeal and the associated application were dismissed, leaving the temporary injunction in place. The judgment was delivered on January 5, 2024, with the legal representatives for both parties presenting their arguments extensively.

Date of Decision:05 January 2024

RAMESH KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR VS USHA NINDAWAT     

 

Similar News