HEADNOTE
Case Title: Manmohan Kumar v. Neelam Khurana & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Date of Judgment: 21 January 2026
Case Number: CS (OS) No. 626/2023
Laws/Sections Involved:
Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 & 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
Section 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925;
Principles governing temporary injunction and status quo orders
Keywords: property dispute, suspicious Will, invalid sale deed, status quo order, third-party rights, interim injunction, Delhi High Court
Summary
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim status quo order restraining further transfer or creation of third-party rights in a Rajouri Garden property, holding that a Will relied upon by subsequent purchasers was prima facie suspicious and legally invalid. The Court noted that the alleged Will was unregistered, falsely declared the testator as childless, and was attested by only one witness, contrary to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. Justice Amit Bansal held that since the plaintiff’s mother never became absolute owner, the sale deed executed by her in 1986 was prima facie invalid, rendering all subsequent transactions vulnerable. Rejecting the plea to allow sale on an indemnity bond, the Court ruled that ownership rights in immovable property cannot be substituted by monetary security. Finding a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, the Court directed maintenance of status quo over title and possession till final adjudication.
Court’s decision
In a detailed and strongly reasoned interim order, the Delhi High Court confirmed a status quo direction restraining further transfer, alienation, or creation of third-party rights in a residential property at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. Justice Amit Bansal held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case that the foundational Will and sale deed forming the basis of the defendants’ title were legally suspect. The Court ruled that permitting further sale—even against an indemnity bond—would irreversibly prejudice the plaintiff’s substantive ownership rights. Consequently, the interim order maintaining status quo over title and possession was confirmed to operate till final disposal of the suit.
Genesis of the dispute
The dispute concerns property bearing No. J-6/50, Rajouri Garden, admeasuring 160 square yards. The property originally belonged to the plaintiff’s father, Late Shri Madan Gopal Madhok, who acquired it through a registered sale deed in 1964. He died intestate in July 1981, leaving behind his wife, Smt. Radha Rani, and his only son, the plaintiff Manmohan Kumar.
According to the plaintiff, upon his father’s death, both he and his mother inherited the property as Class I legal heirs. The plaintiff asserted that he continued to remain in possession, though not residing there continuously due to financial constraints and the dilapidated condition of the house.
Discovery of the impugned sale deed
The controversy surfaced decades later, in January 2021, when the plaintiff decided to sell the property during the COVID-19 pandemic. While applying for certified copies of ownership documents, he allegedly discovered for the first time a registered sale deed dated 19 September 1986, by which his mother had sold the property to one Chander Mohan Nayyar.
The plaintiff claimed that he was never aware of this sale deed and asserted that his mother had no authority to transfer the entire property without his consent. He further alleged that the sale deed and all subsequent transactions were fraudulent.
Subsequent transactions and alleged trespass
The defendants claimed title through a long chain of subsequent transfers originating from the 1986 sale deed. Over time, different portions of the property allegedly changed hands through sale deeds, GPA transactions, and settlement arrangements, culminating in ownership claims by defendant no.3 and another transferee.
The plaintiff alleged that from 2021 onwards, he noticed electricity meters being installed, renovation work being carried out, and demolition of portions of the property by persons claiming through the impugned title. Multiple police complaints, civil suits, and even criminal proceedings followed.
Interim injunction and challenge
In November 2023, the High Court passed an interim order directing parties to maintain status quo regarding title and possession. Defendant no.3 subsequently sought vacation of this order under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, arguing that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, that the suit was time-barred, and that the defendants were bona fide purchasers who had invested crores in construction.
The defendant further offered to furnish an indemnity bond and sought permission to sell constructed floors to third parties.
Central legal issue: validity of the Will
At the heart of the controversy lay a Will dated 10 January 1981, purportedly executed by the plaintiff’s father in favour of his wife. The defendants relied on this Will to argue that the plaintiff’s mother became the absolute owner and was competent to sell the property in 1986.
Justice Amit Bansal subjected the Will to close scrutiny and found multiple red flags:
- The Will falsely stated that the testator had no children, despite the admitted existence of the plaintiff.
- The Will was unregistered.
- It was attested by only one witness, in direct violation of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, which mandates attestation by at least two witnesses.
The Court held that these factors rendered the Will prima facie suspicious and legally invalid.
Impact on the 1986 sale deed
Once the Will was found suspect, the very foundation of the 1986 sale deed collapsed. The Court held that if the plaintiff’s mother was not the absolute owner, she could not have lawfully transferred the entire property.
Significantly, the Court noted that the impugned sale deed itself made no reference to the Will, further undermining the defendants’ narrative.
Justice Bansal observed that all subsequent transfers flowed from the impugned sale deed and would therefore also be prima facie invalid if the root transaction failed.
Possession and limitation: issues for trial
The defendants argued that the suit was barred by limitation and that the plaintiff had knowledge of the sale deed since 1986. The Court rejected this contention at the interim stage, noting that there was no material on record conclusively showing prior knowledge.
Similarly, the question of whether the plaintiff remained in possession after 1987 was held to be a disputed question of fact requiring trial. The Court noted that the water connection still stood in the name of the plaintiff’s father, lending some support to the plaintiff’s version.
Rejection of indemnity bond argument
One of the most significant observations in the judgment was the Court’s rejection of the defendant’s offer to furnish an indemnity bond in lieu of maintaining status quo.
Justice Bansal categorically held that ownership rights in immovable property are substantive rights and cannot be neutralised or substituted by a monetary indemnity. Once third-party rights are created, the plaintiff cannot be adequately compensated, making interim protection essential.
Application of injunction principles
Applying the settled triad for interim relief, the Court held:
- Prima facie case: Established, given serious doubts over the Will and sale deed.
- Balance of convenience: Favoured the plaintiff, as allowing further transfers would irreversibly complicate the dispute.
- Irreparable injury: Creation of third-party rights would cause irreversible harm not compensable in money.
Final order
The High Court confirmed the interim status quo order passed on 7 November 2023, as extended subsequently, directing that it shall continue till final adjudication of the suit. Both interim applications were disposed of accordingly.
Conclusion
The judgment is a powerful reminder that courts will not permit commercial expediency or subsequent investments to override serious doubts about title. By freezing the property despite decades of transactions, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that defects at the root of title cannot be glossed over at the interim stage.
Implications
This ruling will have wide ramifications in property litigation, particularly in Delhi, where old GPA-based and Will-based transactions are frequently litigated. It reinforces strict compliance with succession law, cautions against reliance on suspicious testamentary documents, and strengthens judicial reluctance to allow third-party rights pending trial.