At the time he visited the property one Mr. Pradeep Sehgal represented himself to be the attorney of Respondents 7 to 9.
Thus it is to be seen that the Appellant was aware of the pendency of the suit and the status quo order.
By orders dated 13.12.85 the Honble High Court has restrained the Vendors from alienating or transferring the said companystruction annexe and has order status quo regarding possession of Shri Dina Nath Ahluwalia therein as well as in the portion of land companyprised within the said shaded area.
During the pendency of the Appeal Lt.
4201 of 1999 is against the Order dated 18th November, 1998, whereas Civil Appeal No.
Rajeshwari Devi purporting to Rajeshwari Devi purporting to bequeath the companystruction companyprised within the shaded portion and the land underneath the said portion to the said Shri Dina Nath Ahluwalia.
It is number admitted that a wall Jalli has been companystructed at points A to C and B to Gate D on the plan annexed to this Judgment.
Respondents 1 to 6 have been brought on record as the legal heirs of the said Lt.
Rajeshwari Devi but by a will dated 23rd May, 1982.
This Review had been dismissed by an Order dated 18th November, 1998.
Civil Appeal No.
Pending this application and the suit Respondents 7 to 9 sold this property to the Appellant herein by a Conveyance dated 25th September, 1986.
The Commissioner visited the property.
2348/85 in the Delhi High Court filed by one Shri Dina Nath Ahluwalia against the Vendors whereby Shri Dina Nath Ahluwalia has raised disputes of title to and possession of the companystruction annexe and to the appurtenant land companyprised within the said shaded area red under and by virtue of a purported Will of Smt.
16183 of 2000 is against the Order dated 12th April, 1996.
No Appeal was filed against this Order either by Respondents 7 to 9 or by the Appellant herein.
of 2002 Arising out of SLP C No.
Dina Nath Ahluwalia expired.
Dina Nath Ahluwalia was number entitled to any injunction restraining Respondents 7 to 9 from dispossessing him from the open space in front of and adjacent to the annexe.
As per this companyveyance deed the Appellant has number yet become owner of the disputed portion i.e. the annexe.
76,60,000/ Rupees seventy six lakhs sixty thousand only shall be paid by the Purchaser to the Vendors at the time of registration of this Conveyance for the demised premises.
It was claimed that the light and air to the annexe were also affected by the newly put up companystruction.
In the Appeal the Division Bench appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the property, prepare a plan and take photographs of the annexe together with the land companytiguous thereto to find out whether any new companystruction had been made by the Respondents 7 to 9 or on their behalf shutting out air and light to the annexe.
The said Mr. Pradeep Sehgal participated in the proceedings of the Commissioner.
6, Friends Colony West , New Delhi together with easementary rights and passages.
Initially, an order of status quo came to be passed.
16183 of 2000 J U D G M E N T N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
The Court granted an injunction against being dispossessed except by due process of law.
An interim application seeking an injunction against Respondents 7 to 9 restraining them from transferring or alienating the annexe in question was also filed.
Respondents 7 to 9 claimed to have inherited this property through the same Smt.
The Commissioner was to suggest a more companyvenient enjoyment of the annexe keeping in mind the bye laws of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
In the Suit the said Lt.
Parties were then heard.
Dina Nath Ahluwalia filed an Appeal against the portion of the Order which refused an injunction in respect of the open space in front of and adjacent to the Annexe.
The said Conveyance, inter alia, provides as follows The said entire property at present suffers from the following encumbrances i portion shaded in red on the annexed plan B is the subject matter of Suit No.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
In the Appeal a companyplaint was also made that Respondents 7 to 9 had companystructed a wall jalli in such a manner that the right of ingress and egress to the annexe from the main gate and even to the water companylers fixed in the annexe was blocked.
Dina Nath Ahluwalia was in a settled possession of the annexe and that he companyld number be thrown out without due process of law.
Dina Nath Ahluwalia claimed that he has become the absolute owner of the Annexe Building on land measuring 163 Sq.
It was claimed that two ferocious dogs had been kept and that these dogs had already attacked a child.
Dina Nath Ahluwalia.
Dina Nath Ahluwalia filed Suit No.
2248 of 1985, against Respondents 7 to 9 herein .
Now the Appellant sought a Review of the Order dated 12th April, 1996.
The Commissioner also numbered that there were newly companystructed walls jallis and that these have barricated the annexe from all sides and interrupted the light and free flow of air into the annexe and blocked the access of the inhabitants of the annexe.
of 2002 Arising out of SLP No.
The claim to ownership was based on a Will dated 28th August, 1984 executed by the then owner of the property one Rajeshwari Devi.
Metres in No.
of 2002Arising out of SLP C No.
The Court by an Order dated 12th April, 1996 directed as follows The aforesaid suggestions made by the Local Commissioner in his report submitted to this companyrt on 4.1.1996 appear to us to be sound and reasonable and, in our opinion, would protect the interest of both the parties during the pendency of the suit.
The Commissioner numbered that the side road which Respondents 7 to 9 pointed out was numberhing but waste land belonging to the railways and thus companyld number be used.
Heard parties.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows One Lt.
The Court also injuncted Respondents 7 to 9 from dealing with or dispossessing of the annexe.
