J C KHOSLA Vs. K G KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of both the interlocutory applications. The first application has been filed by the plaintiff for an injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the enjoyment of the plaintiffs of the property owned by him and from raising any obstruction in the construction of partition wall in accordance with the partition deed dated 30th May, 1972 and from opening a separate entrance gate at point "XY" as shown in the plan annexed alongwith the plaint. Further injunction has been prayed for restraining the defendants from damaging or dismantling the construction which has already been raised by the plaintiff and to remove this from the portion shown red in the plan annexed with the plaint. The second application has been filed by the defendants for vacating ad interim ex-parte injunction.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case are that father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. who was the original owner of the property, had during his lifetime gifted the property bearing No.ll, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi in equal shares to the plaintiff and defendant No.l by a registered deed of gift dated 19th June, 1957. It is the case of the plaintiff that he and defendant No.l had partitioned the said property vide partition deed dated 30th May, 1972 duly registered with the Sub- Registrar. A plan was annexed alongwith the said partition deed in which the portions falling to the share of each of the said two parties were demarcated. It was agreed that the parties shall-own their respective portions absolutely and will not interfere m the portions of each other and that the.partition deed provided for construction of partition wall dividing the portions given to each of the said parties.

(3.) The portion shown in red colour in the plan is stated to be in use of defendant No.l and his family members including defendant No.2 and his children and the portion shown in green colour in the said plan is stated to be in possession and use of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a bachelor. It is alleged that though the partition deed was entered into between parties on 30th May, 1972, but no partition wall was constructed in accordance therewith. However, of late, as per allegations made by the plaintiff, the deferidants wanted to usurp the portion of the properly which belonged to the plaintiff and as a result thereto, he decided to construct a partition wall in accordance with the deed of partition. Since there would have been no entrance to the portion under possession and use of the plaintiff, in case, the partition wall had been constructed, the plaintiff simultaneously with the construction of the partition wall intended to construct a separate entrance gate in his portion. He, vide letter dated 14th December, 1993, informed defendant No.l of his said intention of constructing the wall and entrance gate. On 15th December, 1993 the plaintiff commenced construction and constructed a separate entrance gate in his portion. He is also stated .to have constructed a three feet high wall upto almost the middle of the plot between point "X1- X2" and "X2- X3" as shown in the plan. The plaintiff is also stated to have constructed a wall between point "X4-X5". As the wall was being constructed, defendant No.l is stated to have come to the plot on 16th December, 1993 alongwith large number of persons and interfered with the construction being carried on by the plaintiff. The said defendant is also alleged to have threatened the plaintiff that he would shoot him with his revolver. He is also alleged to have threatened the labourers engaged by the plaintiff. Complaint against the alleged threat is stated to have been made with the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The defendants are stated to have locked the new entrance gate constructed by the plaintiff and alleged to have taken away the keys with them. The defendants are stated to be threatening the plaintiff with dire consequences, complaint of which was also stated to have been lodged with the police. The water connection as well as telephone connections were also alleged to have been disconnected by the defendants and the visitors to the portion of the plaintiff were not allowed to enter by the security guards of the defendants. The defendants and the security guards were stated to be interfering with the construction raised by the plaintiff and they have also posted their guards in the varandah and lawns falling to the portion of the plaintiff. It is stated that as the construction of the wall was in accordance with deed of partition dated 30th May, 1972, the plaintiffs were within their rights to construct the same and the defendants did not have any reason to obstruct the construction of the wall or to demolish the wall which has already been constructed. It is also stated that possession of a portion of the premises which is with the defendants and is in that area which has been allotted to the plaintiffs, is liable to be given back to the plaintiffs and a mandatory injunction has been sought for their removal from the said portion. It is in these circumstances, the present suit has been filed for an injunction.