Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Mr. Prateek Dhir and Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advs v. GAJRAJ SINGH ORS

CS(OS) 375/2025 Page 1 of 4$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CS(OS) 375/2025 & I.A. 14031-14033/2025 GAURAV YADAV .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Mr. Prateek Dhir and Mr. Kuljeet Singh, Advs. versus GAJRAJ SINGH & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Viraj P. Datar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Ms. Meenu Duggal and Mr. Vipul Lamba, Advs. for D-1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORAO R D E R% 30.05.20251.The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction for restraining defendant nos. 1 to 7 from constructing and/or creating any third-party rights on the unpartitioned suit land. The details of the suit land have been set out at prayer clause (a) which reads as under: “the land in village Haibatpura in Khata no. 204/135 in Mustil No. 33 Khasra no. 21 (4-16), Mustil no. 34 Khasra no. 7/2 (2-14), 8/1 (3-11), 13/2 (3-11), 14 (4-12), 17 (4-12), 18/1 (3-11), 24 (4-12), Mustil no. 41, Khasra no. 6/1 (2-16), 26 (0-16), 8/1/1 (0- 12), also measures more than 28 Bighas 10 Biswas in Khata No. 125/72 in Mustil No. 33 Khasra No. 22/2 (0-9), 23/2 (0-9), Mustil No. 41, Khasra No. 01 (4-14), 02 (4-12), 7/1 (4-7), 4 (4-16), 8/1 (4-7).” 2.It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff and defendants nos. 1 to 5 are co-owners of the unpartitioned suit land, while defendants nos. 6 and 7 have no legal claim to it. The suit land, measuring over 28 Bighas 10 Biswas, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2025 at 12:45:56 CS(OS) 375/2025 Page 2 of 4traces its lineage to late Shri Layak Ram the great grandfather of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims lineage through Shri Nathu, son of Shri Layak Ram. 3.Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff has undivided 1/9th share in the suit land. 3.1She states that the plaintiff believes that defendant nos. 1 to 5 who are the recorded co-owners of the suit land have transferred their right and interest in favour of defendant nos. 6 and 7 and it is the defendant nos. 6 and 7 who are presently carrying out the construction and plotting in the unpartitioned suit land. 3.2She states that since the suit land is unpartitioned, the plaintiff is being prejudiced by the said actions of the defendants. 4.Mr. Vipul Lamba, on advance service, has entered appearance on behalf of defendant nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. He states that he will file his vakalatnama within one (1) week. 5.Mr. Viraj R. Datar, learned senior counsel, appearing for defendant nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 states that Sh. Phool Singh was the recorded bhumidar/owner of the suit land and after his death the suit land devolved upon his two sons, namely, late Sh. Ram Swaroop and late Sh. Layak Ram. 5.1He states that the plaintiff in the present suit is the only son of late Sh. Gogal, who in-turn was the grandson of late Sh. Layak Ram and thus has inherited his rights in the suit land from the share of late Sh. Layak Ram. 5.2He states that defendant nos. 6 and 7 have purchased 1/3rd share in the suit land from defendant nos. 1 and 2; and 1/9th share in the suit land from defendant no. 4 (i.e., the uncle of the plaintiff). 5.3He states that defendant nos. 6 and 7 have not purchased the shares of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2025 at 12:45:56 CS(OS) 375/2025 Page 3 of 4defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 5 in the suit land. 5.4He states that a separate suit CS(OS) 329/2025 has already been instituted before the High Court of Delhi, wherein, the plaintiff is a party and has been arrayed as defendant no. 10. He states that the said suit has been filed by the lineal descendants of late Shri Ram Swaroop (i.e., the brother of Shri Layak Ram). He states that the suit land in the present suit is also a subject matter in the abovementioned suit i.e., CS(OS) 329/2025. 5.5He states that an injunction vide order dated 27.05.2025 has already been granted in CS(OS) 329/2025 qua the suit land; restraining the parties therein from carrying out any construction in the suit land and to maintain status quo qua the title and possession of the suit land. 5.6He states that the next date of hearing in the said suit is 29.10.2025 before the Court. 5.7He states that, given the existence of a pending suit concerning the same suit land, and considering that in the present suit the plaintiff has filed a simpliciter suit for injunction without seeking the consequential relief of partition, this suit ought not to be entertained and disposed of referring the plaintiff to the pending suit. 6.In response, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff was not aware about the pendency of CS(OS) 329/2025. She states that however relying upon the submissions of defendants, plaintiff seek liberty to withdraw this suit and pursue the relief of partition in the pending suit bearing CS(OS) 329/2025. 7.Accordingly, the present suit is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the plaintiff to assert the right for partition and injunction in the pending suit bearing CS(OS) 329/2025. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/06/2025 at 12:45:56 CS(OS) 375/2025 Page 4 of 48.Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JMAY 30, 2025/msh/AMClick here to check corrigendum, if any