A prima facie share claimed by heirs justified an interim restraint on third-party transfers.

The plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking to restrain the defendants from creating third-party interests in three properties allegedly acquired by their late father, Chander Bhan.

For property no. 2126/2N4, the defendants admitted it was Chander Bhan’s self-acquired property but relied on a Will allegedly bequeathing it to defendant no. 1; the plaintiffs disputed the Will as forged.

For property no. 2114/5E, defendant no. 2 claimed ownership but produced no document establishing title; documents relied on by the defendants included an unregistered Will referring to Chander Bhan as owner and unregistered instruments concerning the first floor.

For property no. 6008, defendants no. 1 and 4 relied on a registered sale deed in their names.

1. Whether an ad-interim injunction should restrain the defendants from creating third-party interests in property no. 2126/2N4, Prem Nagar, pending the suit.

2. Whether such an injunction should issue in respect of property no. 2114/5E, Prem Nagar, in light of the parties’ competing claims to title.

3. Whether such an injunction should issue in respect of property no. 6008, Karol Bagh, given the registered sale deed relied on by defendants no. 1 and 4.

The application was considered under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 CPC, which empower the court to grant interim injunctive relief in appropriate circumstances.

In assessing the competing claims at this interlocutory stage, the court considered the material produced concerning ownership, including whether the defendants had shown documents supporting their asserted title; it made no final determination on the merits.

For property no. 2126/2N4, although the defendants admitted Chander Bhan’s ownership, they relied on a Will whose validity was disputed. The court declined to determine whether it was forged and refused interim relief for that property.

For property no. 2114/5E, defendant no. 2 produced no document establishing ownership, while the unregistered Will relied on by defendant no. 1 described Chander Bhan as owner. The court considered that the plaintiffs, as his legal heirs, had a prima facie share; the unregistered GPA and agreement to sell did not transfer the property.

In contrast, the registered sale deed for property no. 6008 named defendants no. 1 and 4, so the court declined to grant an injunction concerning it.

Interim relief was declined for properties no. 2126/2N4 and no. 6008.

The plaintiffs were directed to implead Jitender Sharma, whose interest could be affected by partition.

The application was disposed of, with the court clarifying that its observations did not express an opinion on the merits; the parties were also directed to propose issues, and referred to mediation.