Sanjeev Gulati v. Parveen Gulati & Anr.

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The present applications are disposed of accordingly. FAO 107/2026

1. The present challenge has been instituted against the order dated 20.12.2025, whereby the Trial Court dismissed the appellant/plaintiff‟s application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking to restrain the respondents/defendants from creating any third-party rights in the suit property.

2. The plaintiff filed the underlying suit for declaration with consequential reliefs of cancellation, injunction, and partition. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed that he and the defendants, being siblings, along with their mother, were co-owners of the property comprising built up second floor of FAO 107/2026 Pg. 2 of 5 Municipal No. J-5/70, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi – 110027 along with roof rights and proportionate rights in the land underneath (hereinafter referred to as the “Suit Property”). This claim is based on a registered gift deed dated 14.02.2001 executed by Sh. Wasti Ram Gulati, the grandfather of the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 & 2.

3. Notably, the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for partition bearing Civil Suit No. 248/2025, wherein defendant no. 1 had propounded a gift deed dated 22.06.2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned gift deed”) executed by their mother, Late Smt. Saroj Gulati, in favour of defendant NO. 1. The said suit was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit, as prayed for.

4. In the underlying suit, while seeking a decree of declaration that the impugned gift deed was vitiated by fraud practiced upon Smt. Saroj Gulati and was thus void and ineffective, the plaintiff claimed that the signatures of Smt. Saroj Gulati had been obtained by fraud as she was suffering from poor eyesight and hearing ailments. It was averred that despite numerous requests, defendant no. 1 had not provided their mother with a hearing aid. She had remained confined in the suit property and suffered a paralytic attack on 27.10.2021, whereafter the plaintiff attended to her and also bore her hospital expenses. When the mother was taken to the plaintiff‟s residence in January 2022 for proper care, she disclosed on 15.08.2022 that she had been made to execute a document dated 22.06.2007 without her consent. The plaintiff further claimed that he had come to know that defendant no. 1 was trying to create third-party interest in the suit property and, in these facts, had sought an injunction against him. FAO 107/2026 Pg. 3 of 5

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that while the mother owned the second floor, the ground floor is occupied by defendant no. 1, and the first floor of the suit property was sold off by the plaintiff in the year 2005.

6. A perusal of the pleadings as well as the impugned order would show that the impugned gift deed was challenged in the year 2025 with the plaintiff claiming that he had gained knowledge about the same only when defendant no. 1 filed his written statement in the prior suit. However, in the plaint it has been claimed that the mother of the parties had disclosed to the plaintiff on 15.08.2022 that she had executed some document on 22.06.2007, albeit the nature of the document was not disclosed.

7. The plaintiff has not denied the signatures of his mother on the impugned gift deed; however, the challenge is to its genuineness and validity on the ground of coercion induced by defendant no. 1. It is claimed that Smt. Saroj Gulati had poor eyesight and was suffering from hearing ailments.

8. In these facts, the Trial Court took note of the fact that the grandfather of the parties had transferred the ground floor of the concerned property, by way of a gift deed executed in the year 2001, in favour of defendant no. 1; the first floor in favour of the plaintiff; and the second floor to the mother of the parties. The father of the parties had run a business in the name of „Gulati Paints and Hardware‟, and, after his death, the said business was run by their grandfather along with defendant no. 1. However, after some time, the said business along with all its assets was given to the plaintiff. The mother of the parties had bequeathed the second floor in favour of defendant no. 1. FAO 107/2026 Pg. 4 of 5

9. Defendant no. 1, in his written statement, had stated that the plaintiff, on not being satisfied with the share of assets received by him and with a view to harass the defendants, had preferred the underlying suit. The defendant had also sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as well as took objection to the suit under Order II Rule 2 CPC.

10. The Trial Court rightly observed that the issue of limitation would require leading of evidence. It further observed that during the lifetime of Smt. Saroj Gulati, she never protested or filed any complaint with respect to the impugned gift deed executed by her. As per the plaintiff, Smt. Saroj Gulati had informed him on 15.08.2022 about defendant no. 1 having made her execute a document without her consent; however, neither she nor the plaintiff filed any complaint in this regard.

11. The Trial Court further noted that the gift deed, being a registered document, had remained unchallenged for about 15 years. It also noted that general and vague averments had been made against defendant no. 1 regarding the creation of third-party rights. Defendant no. 1 is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the said registered gift deed.

12. Notably, the impugned gift deed is of the year 2007 and remained unchallenged during the lifetime of Smt. Saroj Gulati, who expired in 2022. As even the present challenge to it by way of the underlying suit was raised several years thereafter, the aspect of delay assumes significance.

13. It is trite that in an application seeking the grant of a temporary injunction, the applicants are required to satisfy the Court qua the triple test: i) a prima facie case; ii) the likelihood of suffering irreparable loss; and iii) FAO 107/2026 Pg. 5 of 5 the balance of convenience (Ref: Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Coca Cola Co.[1] ).