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

125
0
Share:
property interest free Property Worker Bail Document Medical Work Bail spDispute a Suit v Illegal Duty office Dowry Husband Parole marriage statements Financial Children Pay Property vLife PostClaims Evidence Medical delhi Goods Hindu Marriage Act Life Evidence Service Agreement CashPetitioner POCSO Property violence VIGOURA Eviction evidence BSuicide ail stability Property Advocates Samsung tax EWS Workman Delhi Delhi High Court HALDIRAM Suit Health bailDate of Decision: April 03, 2024 M/S DSS Buildtech Pvt. Ltd vs. Manoj Kayal Chargesheet bankEvidence Tobacco Payments Jail Google family non-appearance-despite-repeated-warnings-persistent-evasion-from-cbi Tribunal's Divorce Education cbi Bail Written written Disciplinary Mobile Affidavit Payment limited rape Divorce violence publication natco parole accident 25 License Cross-Examine family Maintenance public Publication Bail father Bail  specific Habitual bail OBC-NCL deed disciplinary missing property nature ews sarfaesi jail post amendment evidence jurisdiction government Candidates license Training property Cheque maintenance property 304 evidence diploma police tax divorce divorce police negligence contract disability

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     

 

Download Judgment

Share: