RAKESH KUMAR ANAND Vs. JANG BAHADUR ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant and the respondent are real brothers. Their mother Smt. Krishna Anand had expired on December 27, 2007. The ashes of their mother were still smouldering when dispute arose between them with regard to the rear portion of property number 13/27, Moti Nagar, New Delhi comprising of one room, latrine, bath and kitchen which was in occupation of their mother till her death. The front portion is in occupation of the appellant who is living there with his wife and children.

(2.) IT is alleged by the appellant that after the death of the mother, on December 30, 2007, the respondent along with his two sons entered the rear portion of property No. 13/27 and forcibly tried to dispossess him from that portion. He made an urgent call to the police control room whereupon the police arrived on the spot and took the respondent and his sons to the police station. But, thereafter, the police in connivance with the respondent forcibly affixed an "iron door" at point A in the said premises and locked the same.

(3.) AFTER the aforesaid incident the appellant filed a suit in the trial court seeking a declaration that both he and the respondent are the joint owners of property bearing number 13/27, Moti Nagar, which is on the ground floor and No. 13/27A, Moti Nagar, on the first floor. He has also sought partition of the suit property and a mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the iron door and the lock illegally put in between property No. 13/27 on the ground floor. He further has sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from selling, transferring or disposing of or creating any mortgage or interest of any third party either in property No. 13/27 or in 13/27A, Moti Nagar. Along with the suit he also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and by way of interim relief sought a direction to the respondent to remove the iron door and the lock shown at point "A" in the site plan of property number 13/27 and also a restraint order against him from selling, transferring or disposing of or creating any mortgage or third party interest in the suit property. The learned Additional District Judge who dealt with the application vide his order dated January 24, 2008 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect to the suit property but passed no order with regard to the relief of removal of the iron gate and the lock put thereon. However, a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the site to ascertain whether the respondent had installed a new iron door at the rear portion and had locked the same and also whether the books pertaining to the son of the appellant were lying in the rear portion.