HEMANT KUMAR Vs. SADHNA SHRMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 18259/2012 under Order XXXIX Rule 1, 2 and 3 seeking an interim injunction. The plaintiff also filed an Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 for appointment of Local Commissioner to carry out inspection of the suit premises. Vide Order dated October 1, 2010, this Court passed an ex-parte injunction as under:

(2.) Vide the same Order, this Court also appointed Mr. Rohit Nagpal as a Local Commissioners to visit the suit premises and report if the plaintiff's water supply lines are in any manner being interfered with so as to cause the situation of the plaintiff not receiving any water supply in the ground floor premises. Thereafter, the plaintiff, alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order by the defendant, filed a Contempt Petition No. 108/2012. Meanwhile, the defendant has also filed an I.A. 3480/2103 under Order XXXIX Rule 4, seeking the vacation of the ex-parte injunction dated October 1, 2010. The plaintiff has also filed I.A. 23201/2012 under Sec. 151 seeking permission to have access to the overhead water tanks placed on the terrace floor of the suit premises.

(3.) The plaintiff submits that he is the lawful owner of the suit premises i.e. the ground floor of the property bearing No. B-54 South Extention Part I which comprises of three bedrooms, drawing cum dining room, kitchen, lobby, front veranda, open space in the front as well as the backyard, garage and 50% of the terrace rights with the right to use the common stair case and common entrance. The plaintiff submits that he has purchased the ground floor of the suit property from Sh. Ashok Prakash Sharma, jointly along with defendants no. 3 and 4, who are being proceeded as proforma parties. Defendant no. 2, Sh. Vinod Prakash Sharma, is the brother of the said Sh. Ashok Prakash Sharma, and that defendant no. 1 is the wife of defendant no. 2; who resides in the first floor of the said property. The plaintiff submits that the suit property was earlier owned by one Sh. Sugan Chand Sharma, who died intestate on February 16, 1984 leaving behind a widow, daughter and two sons. Subsequently, the widow and the daughter of the deceased relinquished their 2/4th of the undivided share of the said property in favour of the two sons of the deceased.