Full Judgment Text
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) 112/2024 & C.M.Nos.46654-46656/2024
BALVEEN SINGH CHADHA @ RICKY .....Appellant
Through: Mr.L.S.Solanki with Ms.Anu Solanki,
Advocates.
versus
HARVEEN SINGH CHADHA @ LOVELY & ORS......Respondents
Through:
th
% Date of Decision: 14 August, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
th
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 15 May,
2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A.
No.22013/2023 in CS(OS) 712/2023, whereby the application filed by the
Appellant (Plaintiff therein) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking an injunction against the
Respondents from alienating the subject properties was dismissed on the
ground that the Respondent No.1 (Defendant No. 1 therein) had a registered
sale deed vis the subject properties in his favor. The subject suit has been
filed by the Appellant herein seeking partition of the subject properties.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the learned Single Judge
has failed to appreciate that not granting a stay order would result in
multiplicity of litigation as the third parties, to whom the Respondents are
proposing to sell the subject properties are builders and not the end users of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:16.08.2024
13:14:37
FAO(OS) 112/2024 Page 1 of 2
the properties and there is a possibility that the subject properties may
change multiple hands during the pendency of the suit proceedings.
3. He also states that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the
sanctity of the documents (at pages 135 to 137 of the paper book) placed on
record by the Appellant to show that the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have not
only admitted the fact of relationship and subsequent right of the Appellant
to the subject properties but also admitted the fact that they were in the
process of disposing of the suit properties.
4. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Single Judge
has dismissed the injunction application of the Appellant in the underlying
st
suit proceedings on the sole ground that a registered sale deed dated 21
September, 2005 had been executed in favour of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
5. This Court is in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge
that there is a presumption of genuineness attached to a registered sale deed.
(See: Jamila Begum vs. Shami Mohd., (2019) 2 SCC 727 ; Prem Singh vs.
Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353 and Rattan Singh vs. Nirmal Gill, (2021) 15 SCC
300 )
6. It is further settled law that the scope of interference in appeal against
interlocutory order is restricted. (See: Wander Ltd. & Anrs. vs. Antox India
P. Ltd., 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 )
7. Consequently, the present appeal along with the applications is
dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
AUGUST 14, 2024/KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:16.08.2024
13:14:37
FAO(OS) 112/2024 Page 2 of 2