RAVINDER SINGH SANDHU Vs. RAVNEET KAUR SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal against the Order dated 18th March, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of IA No. 14872/2009 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the Appellant/Plaintiff), IA No. 16863/2009 (under Section 151 CPC by the Respondent/Defendant No. 1) and IA No. 16096/2009 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC by Respondent/Defendant No. 1). Vide the impugned order the learned Single Judge modified its Order dated 24th November, 2009 wherein the parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession, title and construction till the pendency of the proceedings in the following manner:

(2.) The Appellant filed a Plaint being CS (OS) No. 2187/2009 against the Respondents inter alia praying for a decree of declaration that he had purchased the 50% of the half undivided share of the property bearing No. K-16A, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi purchased in the name of Respondent No. 1 vide Sale Deed dated 25th March, 2008 and declaring him to be the absolute owner thereof. He also sought a preliminary decree of partition seeking 3/4th share in the entire Suit property and the Defendant No.1, to the extent of 1/4th share in the Suit property and also a mandatory injunction directing the Respondents to withdraw themselves from the possession of the said so defined portion in favour of the Appellant. On 24th November, 2009 the learned Single Judge passed an ex parte ad interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the possession, title and construction on the said Suit property.

(3.) The case of the Appellant is that the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 were married on 16th November, 1997 and from the wedlock two children a daughter named Achint Kaur and a son namely Joban Singh were born on 9th December, 2001 and 15th September, 2006 respectively. It is the case of the Appellant that he and his brother had bought 50% share each of this property from its erstwhile owner in the year 1996. Initially, though after the marriage they were staying with the Appellant 's father, however, to maintain peace and harmony in the matrimonial relationship he along with the Respondent No. 1 shifted to the ground floor of the Suit property. His younger brother along with his family resided on the first floor. The father of the Appellant though a widower continued staying in his own house. The property was, however, not partitioned by metes and bounds among the brothers. According to the Appellant due to the immense interference of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the temperamental difference with Respondent No. 1, the life was never a smooth sailing one resulting in heavy loss in the business and thus, compelling the Appellant to start a new business from his own funds in August, 2004 at Noida. Since he did not have any place to start the business, the Respondent No.2 offered him vacant premises in his factory at Noida wherein he started his business. However, soon thereafter he was allotted an industrial plot at Manesar. Since the Respondent No. 1 did not want the brother of the Appellant also to be living in the same house and wanted transfer of his share in her name there were constant problems whereby the Appellant 's brother was also persuaded to sell his portion in the name of the Respondent No. 1 and shift out from the said premises. According to the Appellant, despite having purchased the half undivided share of the Suit property from his brother for which he paid substantially out of his own funds, the Respondent No. 1 was still not satisfied and there was constant discord in the matrimonial life. The business also could not run as the Respondent No. 1 being the partner, refused signing cheques and thus, creating problems and not only this she lodged a complaint at the Noida Police Station against the Appellant. Constraint from all these the Appellant filed a petition for decree of divorce under Section 13 (1A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant there was continuous interference and threats from Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, that is, the parents of Respondent No. 1 and to cause more insult they shifted with Respondent No. 1 in the Suit premises on the first floor owned by the Appellant. According to the Appellant he is entitled to 3/4th share in the entire property and on his request to partition the property by metes and bounds, the Respondents are trying to dispose of the 50% undivided share of the property by illegal means.