RAJIV BHATNAGAR Vs. ISH BHATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the respondent herein are brother and sister to each other, they being locked in more than one litigation respecting property which concededly was originally owned by their predecessorin-interest. The petitioner herein had earlier instituted suit (CS (OS) No.617/2013) which was filed on the original side of this court wherein he sought relief of the partition of the properties moveable and immoveable besides other reliefs in the nature of declaration, injunction prohibitory and mandatory and rendition of accounts. The present proceedings relate to a subsequent suit (CS (OS) No.910/2015, new No.CS No.10408/2016) which was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for relief of recovery of possession, mesne profits/damages for use and occupation of the premises which is part of the estate involved in the previous suit. The petitioner (defendant of the said suit) had sought rejection of the said plaint by moving an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was dismissed by the additional district judge by order dated 05.01.2018. The present petition seeks to assail the said order.

(2.) In the previous suit instituted by the petitioner, inter alia, seeking partition, an interim injunction order was granted in his favour by order dated 05.04.2013 whereby the defendant of the said suit, i.e., the plaintiff in the present suit (the respondent) was restrained from alienating, encumbering or parting with possession of property, i.e. I12, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi, she also being restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff of the suit, i.e. the petitioner from the portion in his occupation or from disconnecting the electricity or water supply. It is the submission of the petitioner that the said ad interim injunction order continues to operate till date.

(3.) The suit instituted by the respondent herein is based on her claim that she is the absolute owner of the aforementioned property, the title therein having been transferred to her by a gift deed executed and registered by the father of the parties. The validity of the said registered gift deed is questioned by the petitioner herein.