RAJ KHURANA Vs. AMRAWATI MADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of the plaintiff's application for temporary ad-interim injunction, i.e. IA 5434/2008. The plaintiff sues the defendant for declaration, recovery of possession mesne profits and permanent injunction. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of late Parkash Chand Khurana; (hereafter called "the late father") the first defendant a daughter of the said late father. It is not disputed that the said father of the parties, died on 23-3-2007.

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the application are that according to the plaintiff, the late father had, at the time of his death, bequeathed his assets and properties, by excluding the first defendant. The bequest was in favour of the plaintiff's brothers, i.e the second and third defendant, in respect of a factory situated at 700 sq. yards, a tenanted premises at Samaipur, Delhi. It is alleged that under the will, the testator bequeathed the leasehold residential property, at 27, Rajendra Park, exclusively in his favour. The plaintiff contends that exclusive tenancy rights were bequeathed in his favour in respect of a godown at 48176/6, Katra Subhash Chandni Chowk, and rights were bequeathed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of the tenancy in Shop No. 5260, Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk. The plaintiff alleges that immediately upon death of the late father, the first defendant took over a portion of the residential property, and occupied two rooms and balcony on the first floor. It is further alleged that after the funeral ceremonies were over, the parties to the suit became aware of the deceased's will, dated 20th February, 2007, which was discovered in a room which had been locked. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendants agreed to vacate the premises, but after the first death anniversary of the deceased.

(3.) THE plaintiff's first application for ad-interim injunction was moved on 29th April, 2008, (IA 5149/2008); notice on it, and summons in the suit, were issued 1st May, 2008. Immediately thereafter, the present application, IA 5434/2009 was moved, alleging that after notice was issued by the court, the defendants learnt about the present proceeding, and with a view to defeat any likely order, they colluded with "builder mafia" and sought to hand over possession of the property. It is alleged that on 2-5-2008 itself such "mafia" with the aid of "hoodlums" sought to take over possession of the property which was resisted; the plaintiff sought police assistance. It is alleged that assurances to abide by the court's order were given, but promptly ignored, when again attempts were made to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff. Therefore, ex-parte injunction was sought. The court heard the application on 5-5-2008, issued notice to the defendants, and directed the local police authorities to ensure that no harm is caused to the plaintiff, due to his filing the suit, and also ensure that no untoward incident takes place.