Mata Shanti Devi Mandir Trust vs Seema Gupta

Since the learned counsel for the respondent has entered appearance, the present caveat stands discharged.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The present application is disposed of in the above terms.

The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.07.2026 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking to restrain the respondent/defendant from alienating or altering the subject property came to be dismissed.

The parties are hereinafter referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

It has been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is a Public Charitable Trust established on 19.06.1998 by the late Smt. Shanti Devi for advancing spiritual and humanitarian objectives, with a strict prohibition on profit-making activities. During her lifetime, she acquired certain immovable properties, including the subject property at House No. 20/4, Block-A, Rana Pratap Bagh, Malka Gang North, Delhi – 110007 admeasuring 300 sq. yds. approximately, and another property i.e. Plot No. 711, Sh. Priya Nikunj, (Mata Shanti Devi) Banke Mohalla, Kalidah Road at Vrindavan in Uttar Pradesh. These properties were irrevocably dedicated to the plaintiff Trust by Smt. Shanti Devi though duly executed trust deeds, thereby vesting beneficial ownership in the Trust for perpetual charitable use and for maintaining the Shanti Kunj Ashram operating from the subject property. It is further averred that Smt. Shanti Devi expired in or around the year 2000. During her lifetime and thereafter, one Sh. Jagdish Chandra Arora served as caretaker of Shanti Kunj Ashram and was permitted to occupy a portion of the subject property in the said capacity. After his demise in the year 2020, the present defendant, who was engaged as a caretaker to assist Sh. Arora and with the functioning of the Ashram, continued to occupy a portion of the subject property purely on a permissive basis, while the remaining portion always remained in the possession of the plaintiff Trust for discharging its religious purposes.

The plaint further averred that the defendant had wrongly retained title documents of the subject property and was attempting to sell and alienate the same in collusion with third parties, claiming ownership on the basis of a forged and fabricated Will purportedly executed by the late Sh. Jagdish Chandra Arora. It has been contended that Sh. Arora himself had no title or authority to bequeath the property, being only a caretaker of the same in a fiduciary capacity.

Before this Court, learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that in light of the specific averments made, the Trial Court had erred in dismissing the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC vide which the plaintiff had sought to restrain the defendant from alienating or altering the subject property.

He further submits that the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.03.2026, and the defendant’s challenge against the same is presently pending consideration before this Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant supports the impugned order and submits that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the late Smt. Shanti Devi was the owner of the subject property. On the other hand, the defendant has claimed the ownership of the subject property through the late Sh. Jagdish Chandra Arora, who had acquired the subject property by virtue of a sale deed. Further, it is claimed that Sh. Arora had executed a registered Will dated 22.03.2019, and the subject property was bequeathed to the defendant, and that the Will was probated and no objection was raised in the probate proceedings.

The principles governing grant of a temporary injunction are well settled. The applicant must satisfy the triple test: (i) a prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; and (iii) irreparable loss (Ref: Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Coca Cola Co.^{11.(1995) 5 SCC 545})

Concededly, the plaintiff has sought to establish title over the subject property on the basis of certain photographs and the testimony of witnesses which it intends to produce in trial. It is claimed that the Trust Deed vide which the subject property was given to the Trust has been illegally retained by the defendant. The plaintiff also seeks to rely on oral evidence in this regard. On being questioned, the learned counsel has answered in affirmative that there is no other evidence available on record. The Trust deed placed on record is with respect to the property at Vrindavan. On being questioned, it is contended that since the alleged Will itself contains a restriction against selling or transferring the Ashram portion of the subject property, it can be inferred that even Sh. Arora had the understanding that the Trust is the owner of the subject property.

As noted above, the defendant has claimed that Sh. Arora became the owner of the subject property upon purchasing it from one Smt. Sewi Bai on 12.03.1957, whereafter he got a sanction plan for construction approved from MCD on 12.11.1958. Later, he executed a registered Will dated 22.03.2019 in favour of the defendant and bequeathed the subject property to her. The Will stands probated vide judgment dated 14.01.2025 in Probate Petition No. 07/22. Copies of the registered sale deed dated 12.03.1957, the Will dated 22.03.2019, as well as the judgment dated 14.01.2025 passed in the probate petition were filed along with the Written Statement. The defendant has further claimed that the Trust Deed placed on record by the plaintiff pertains to an altogether different Trust, namely Shripriya Nikunj (Mata Shanti Devi) Trust, and is with respect to one property at Vrindavan. Neither is the said Trust in the name of the plaintiff nor is the said property the subject matter of the present appeal.

The Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, duly noted that while the plaintiff, in the underlying suit, has sought cancellation of the Will executed by the late Sh. Jagdish Chander Arora in favour of the defendant, it has failed to mention any specific details of the Will, including the date thereof, in the plaint. The Trial Court also noted that the plaintiff, despite knowing that the Will had already been probated, did not take any steps for the revocation of the same in terms of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The impugned order notes that the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for the grant of interim injunction. The plaintiff has to show some documents connecting it to the subject matter i.e., the subject property at Delhi. Strangely, along with the plaint, except for the trust deed regarding the property at Vrindavan, no other document has been placed on record which would point to the ownership claims of the plaintiff.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed overlooking the factual matrix of the case and is accordingly not required to be set aside.

The plaintiff having failed to satisfy the Court, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.

Consequently, the pending application shall stand closed.