RAM CHANDRA SABHARWAL Vs. SATISH CHANDRA SABHARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein have filed Probate Case No. 29/2006 on the Original Side of this Court. In the said petition, probate is sought on the basis of purported Will dated 4.6.1990 allegedly executed by Late Shri Shadi Lal Sabharwal. This Will is in respect of two properties owned by the testator : (a) Quarter Nos. 129 -130, Vasdev Nagar, Andha Mughal, Pratap Nagar, Delhi - 110007; and (b) Shop bearing No.1A, Qutab Road, Delhi - 110 006, wherein business in the name and style of M/s. Lok Seva Store is carried out. The petitioners (i.e. respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein), also filed an application (IA No. 5548/2006) under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC) seeking ad interim injunction. It was alleged in this application that the respondent No. 1 herein is in settled possession of the Qutab Road shop since 1973 and likewise the respondent No. 2 is in settled possession of the residential house at Vasdev Nagar since 1950. It was alleged that the appellant Nos. 1 & 2 herein (respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in the probate case) were threatening to dispossess the said respondents from the aforesaid properties. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has allowed the prayer made in that application vide orders dated 13.8.2007 directing maintenance of status quo with regard to title and possession of the aforesaid two properties. Three persons have challenged the said order, namely, Shri Ram Chandra Sabharwal, Shri Laxman Chand Sabharwal and Smt. Varinder Sabharwal, who were arrayed in the probate petition as respondent Nos. 3, 4 & LR of respondent No. 2 respectively.

(2.) THERE is not much of a dispute that the respondents No. 1 and 2 were in possession of the said properties, though, as noticed by the learned Single Judge, there was only a bald denial to the exclusive possession of the property by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein. Therefore, insofar as issuance of status quo order regarding title and possession of the properties is concerned, it hardly poses any difficulty as the learned Single Judge rightly pointed out that at this stage only prima facie view of the matter was to be taken and even if the Will dated 4.6.1990 was to be disbelieved, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 certainly have a claim of title in the suit property. Because of this reason, so far as the possession is concerned, it cannot be disputed that till adjudication of the respective rights and contentions, both the parties are required to maintain the same in the existing possession.

(3.) THE plea of the appellants, involving the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, is founded on the following averments :