NATASHA KOHLI Vs. MAN MOHAN KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, I shall dispose of the above applications made by the plaintiff and defendants respectively for interim injunction.

(2.) Succinctly stating the facts relevant for deciding these applications are that plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against three defendants. Defendant No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff, defendant No. 2 is a company and defendant No. 3 is brother of her husband and director of defendant No. 2. In this suit, she prayed that a decree be passed injuncting defendant No. 1 and his servants etc from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing number 15-A, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi. The other prayer made was that defendant No. 1 be restrained from creating any third party interest in the suit premises or dispossessing plaintiff from the suit premises. She also prayed that a decree of permanent injunction be passed against defendant No. 2 from changing the shareholding of defendant No. 2 and a decree be passed against defendants restraining them from issuing additional unused 800 shares out of 2000 authorized share capital of defendant No. 2 company and decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to transfer 300 shares of J.K. Private Limited from defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff.

(3.) Plaintiff claimed right to possess the property on two counts. One that she was a part owner of the suit property in view of compromise decree passed in Suit No. 824 of 1993 by this Court by taking on record the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 16th October 1995 and decreeing the suit in terms of the family settlement. It is not disputed by her that the suit property stood in the name of defendant No. 2. The other right to possession is claimed because of the fact that she was wife of defendant No. 1 and the property was her matrimonial home.