Unchallenged Registered Gift Deed Bars Interlocutory Injunction Against Subsequent Creation of Third-Party Rights

The Appellant/Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, partition, and injunction against his siblings (Respondents/Defendants) regarding the second floor of property J-5/70, Rajouri Garden.

The property was originally gifted to the parties' mother, Smt. Saroj Gulati, by their grandfather in 2001.

The Appellant challenged a registered gift deed dated 22.06.2007, executed by the mother in favor of Respondent No. 1, alleging it was obtained through fraud and coercion due to the mother’s poor health.

The Appellant claimed he only gained knowledge of the deed's nature in 2022.

The Trial Court dismissed the Appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which sought to restrain the Respondents from creating third-party rights.

1. Whether the Appellant satisfied the "triple test" (prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience) required for the grant of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC

2. Whether the long-standing nature of a registered gift deed (15 years) and the lack of contemporaneous protest by the donor weigh against the grant of interim relief

The Court applied the "triple test" for temporary injunctions as articulated in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. (1995) 5 SCC 545, requiring the presence of a prima facie case, likelihood of irreparable loss, and a balance of convenience in favor of the applicant.

It further relied on the legal presumption of validity attached to registered documents and the principle that delay and laches, particularly in challenging a title deed after the death of the executant, are critical factors in denying equitable relief.

The Court observed that the impugned gift deed was a registered document from 2007 that remained unchallenged for 15 years during the lifetime of Smt. Saroj Gulati, who passed away in 2022.

Although the Appellant alleged fraud, the Court noted that neither the mother nor the Appellant filed any complaints regarding the deed when they allegedly discovered the "fraudulent" execution in August 2022.

The Court found no prima facie case because the Appellant was not in possession of the suit property and failed to provide concrete evidence of coercion beyond vague averments.

Consequently, the balance of convenience did not favor the Appellant, as Respondent No. 1 held a valid registered title that had been settled for over a decade.

The Court upheld the Trial Court's order dated 20.12.2025, finding no infirmity or perversity in its reasoning.

The appeal (FAO 107/2026) was dismissed, with the clarification that the observations made were only for the disposal of the interim application and would not influence the final trial.