Delhi HC Lifts Interim Restraint on Gurugram Unit Allotted to Brother After Sister Fails to Link Father’s Funds to Purchase

In 2019, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo concerning the title and possession of properties listed in the plaint, including Unit No. 1114, Spaze Corporate Park, Gurugram.

The defendant sought vacation of the restraint insofar as it concerned that property, relying on an allotment letter issued in his name.

The plaintiff claimed that their deceased father had funded the purchase from proceeds of property transactions, but produced no payment or transaction records linking those proceeds to the Gurugram property.

The application was considered under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits the Court to discharge, vary, or set aside an interim injunction.

The Court reasoned that inclusion of a property in the suit schedule does not, by itself, establish that it belonged to the deceased or that the plaintiff has a share in it; continuation of an interim restraint requires a sufficient basis in the material on record.

The allotment letter identified the defendant as the applicant for the unit, although it described the allotment as provisional and conditional and did not establish who paid the consideration.

The plaintiff’s assertion that the father received funds from other transactions did not establish that those funds were applied to this property; no receipt, bank statement, or other contemporaneous record demonstrated that connection.

The Court also found no supporting material for the allegation that the allotment letter was procured in collusion with the builder, and noted that the alleged funding facts were absent from the plaint.

In those circumstances, the plaintiff’s contention that ownership should await trial did not justify continuing the restraint.

The order dated 30 July 2019 was vacated insofar as it concerned Unit No. 1114, Spaze Corporate Park, Gurugram.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the application and did not express an opinion on the merits of the suit.