05 January 2024 Property Law >> Personal Law   |   Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate  

A Delhi court has upheld a lower court order restricting the sale of a property caught in an inheritance dispute. The case involves Usha Nindawat, who claims she was fraudulently pressured into signing away her rights to the property in favor of her mother (defendant 1). The property was then sold to third-party buyers (defendants 6 & 7).

Plaintiff Challenges Sale:

Nindawat alleges she is a rightful co-owner of the property alongside her siblings (defendants 1-5). She claims she was forced to sign a relinquishment deed, essentially giving up her claim, through fraud. In response, she filed a lawsuit seeking to:

• Divide the property ownership (partition)
• Have the court declare her a rightful owner (declaration)
• Prevent the sale of the property (permanent injunction)

Temporary Injunction Issued:

A lower court judge granted a temporary injunction, which essentially freezes the sale of the property until the lawsuit is settled. This prevents defendants 6 & 7, who bought the property from Nindawat's mother, from selling it further.

Defendants Appeal Restriction:

Defendants 6 & 7 appealed the temporary injunction, arguing they are innocent purchasers who acted in good faith. They claim they have the right to sell the property they bought regardless of the ongoing lawsuit.

Conclusion:

The Appellate Court rejected the appeal. The court explained that it only intervenes in lower court decisions on temporary injunctions in cases of extreme circumstances, such as if the judge acted unfairly or ignored legal principles.

In this case, the Appellate Court found the lower court judge followed proper procedures. The judge considered the following factors before granting the injunction:

• Prima Facie Case: The court believed Nindawat presented a credible claim of fraud.
• Balance of Convenience: Preventing the sale protects the property's value until ownership is determined.
• Irreparable Harm: If the property is sold and Nindawat wins the lawsuit, she might be left without any recourse.

Since the lower court considered these factors and there was no evidence of a flawed decision-making process, the Appellate Court upheld the temporary injunction.

What's Next?

The property sale remains on hold until the lawsuit between Nindawat and the other parties is settled. The court will ultimately decide on the ownership of the property and whether Nindawat is entitled to any compensation.

  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908