LAWS(DLH)-2004-9-78

JUGAN K MEHTA Vs. S S GULATI

Decided On September 27, 2004
JUGAN K.MEHTA Appellant
V/S
S.S.GULATI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS CONTEMPT PETITION FILED BY THE ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF IS BASED ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE EX PARTE ORDER OF STATUS QUO OF THIS COURT DATED 2ND APRIL, 2002 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY HIS ORDER DATED 25TH AUGUST, 2003 PASSED AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES AND WHICH ORDER IS NOW PENDING IN APPEAL BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH. THE SUIT WAS INTER ALIA FOR PARTITION AND AVERRED THAT THE TWO BROTHERS OF THE PLAINTIFF (WHO IS THE MARRIED SISTER) I.E. DEFENDANT NO. 1 SHRI SHAM SUNDER GULATI, DEFENDANT NO. 3 SHRI RAJ KUMAR GULATI AND DEFENDANT NO. 4 SHRI CHINTU GULATI WHO ARE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE PRAKASH GULATI, ANOTHER BROTHER OF THE PLAINTIFF HAD SOLD THE SUIT PROPERTY AT 31, BUNGLOW ROAD, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI TO DEFENDANT NO. 7- SMT. NEELAM SABLOK IN VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS.

(2.) IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE SUIT PROPERTY HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED VIOLATING THE ORDER OF STATUS QUO. THE DEMOLITION IS AVERRED TO BE WITHOUT ANY VALID SANCTION AND PERMISSION. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT IF RESPONDENTS ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE REBUILDING OF SUIT PREMISES IT WOULD RESULT IN UNDUE HARASSMENT AND IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE PLAINTIFF.

(3.) THE RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS HAVE DENIED THE COMMISSION OF ANY CONTEMPT AND INTER ALIA PLEADED THAT THE PETITIONER IS A MARRIED DAUGHTER WHO HAD EXECUTED ALONG WITH THE OTHER SISTERS AN AFFIDAVIT ON 18TH AUGUST, 1988 TO PERMIT MUTATION OF PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF HER BROTHERS PURSUANT TO A REGISTERED WILL MADE BY THE MOTHER AND FATHER OF THE PETITIONER ON 16TH APRIL, 1981, AND IS NOW FOR ULTERIOR MOTIVES SEEKING TO STAKE AN UNLAWFUL AND BELATED CLAIM IN RESPECT OF THE SUIT PROPERTY. IT WAS ALSO ALLEGED THAT THE FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS WERE RAISED 20 YEARS AFTER THE FATHER'S DEATH IN 1982 AND 10 YEARS AFTER THE MOTHER'S DEATH IN 1992. THE DEFENDANT NO. 7/RESPONDENT NO. 4 WAS SOLD THIS PROPERTY BY THE BROTHERS OF THE PLAINTIFF ON 11TH OCTOBER, 2000 BY A REGISTERED SALE DEED AND EVEN THE PLAINT AVERRED THAT THE DEFENDANT NO. 7 HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY.