Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between two sisters over two adjoining flats originally owned by their father, Jagat Bhushan Jain. The father executed gift deeds in 1999, transferring Flat No. 181 (suit flat) to the plaintiff (Indu Rakesh Jain) and Flat No. 182 (adjoining flat) to defendant No. 1 (Seema Navin Jain). The flats were originally separate in sanctioned plans but were used without a separating wall. After the gifts, the plaintiff resided in Delhi, and the defendants occupied the suit flat with the plaintiff's permission. In 2017, the plaintiff sought to occupy the suit flat and put up a temporary wooden partition wall. The defendants objected, leading to the plaintiff filing a suit and two notices of motion for interim injunctions. The trial court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff's possession (injunction i) but rejected the prayer for putting up a partition wall (injunction ii). Both parties appealed. The High Court upheld the trial court's order, finding that the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case of ownership and possession rights, and the balance of convenience favored her. However, the court held that the plaintiff had no right to create a new partition wall as the gift deed did not confer such a right, and the flats were separate units. The appeals were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interlocutory Injunction - Prima Facie Case - The plaintiff, claiming ownership of suit flat under a gift deed, sought injunction restraining defendants from interfering with her possession. The trial court granted injunction (i) restraining defendants from preventing plaintiff's possession, but rejected injunction (ii) for putting up a temporary partition wall. The High Court upheld the grant of injunction (i) as the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience favored her, but dismissed the cross-appeal for injunction (ii) as the plaintiff had no right to create a new structure not existing at the time of gift. (Paras 1-12) B) Property Law - Gift Deed - Rights of Donee - The gift deed of the suit flat did not confer any right to put up a partition wall separating the suit flat from the adjoining flat. The flats were originally separate but used without a wall; the donee cannot claim a right to create a new structure that would alter the nature of the property. (Paras 8-12) C) Civil Procedure - Balance of Convenience - In granting injunction (i), the trial court correctly held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff, who was the owner and had been paying maintenance bills, while the defendants were in permissive possession and had no right to obstruct. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's grant of injunction restraining the defendants from preventing the plaintiff's possession of the suit flat and rejection of injunction for putting up a temporary wooden partition wall were correct.
Final Decision
Both appeals are dismissed. The impugned order of the trial court is confirmed. The trial court is directed to expedite the hearing and disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Interlocutory injunction
- prima facie case
- balance of convenience
- irreparable injury
- gift deed
- possession
- right to create partition wall
- temporary injunction
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
