Delhi HC Lets Plaintiffs Remove Suresh Jindal’s Artefacts Before Indiabulls Repairs Disputed Property

The suit concerns partition of property at 134, Sundar Nagar, New Delhi, and movable assets, including artworks and film memorabilia, left by Suresh Jindal, who died intestate.

The plaintiffs applied for the artefacts to be inventoried and moved to safe custody before repairs to the property, and sought other relief including a restraint on the ground-floor occupant’s commercial use.

A Local Commissioner had previously been appointed to inventory specified collections and was later directed to access additional floors to facilitate repairs.

Defendant No. 3 did not object to the inventory and temporary removal of the artefacts but opposed the requested restraint concerning the ground floor.

The Court considered the application under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), observing that the interim-relief jurisdiction invoked did not extend to granting, through this application, what was in substance recovery of possession.

The plaintiffs’ reliance on Section 111(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, concerning determination of a lease by efflux of time, was recorded as an assertion in the application; the Court did not decide whether the lease had expired or whether the occupant was entitled to remain in possession. No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the risk that repair work could damage or endanger the artefacts and noted that Defendant No. 3 did not oppose their inventory and temporary removal. It therefore directed the Local Commissioner to inventory all articles, after which the plaintiffs could remove them to a place to be notified to the Court; repairs could then proceed as previously permitted.

By contrast, the proposed restraint on commercial use would, in practical effect, require Defendant No. 3 to vacate the ground floor. The Court held that such relief could not be granted in this Order XXXIX application.

As to the building-condition report, it expressed no opinion and left the plaintiffs free to apply to the MCD, which would consider the request according to law and rules.

Any sale of the artefacts would require a separate application and would be conducted through a court auctioneer.

The request to restrain commercial use of the ground floor was not granted, and the plaintiffs were left at liberty to approach the MCD regarding the building’s condition.