2025:HHC:20989 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.120/2025 Date of Decision: 02nd July, 2025. Zohra Qureshi .....Appellant Versus Leela Verma and Anr. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The appellant, by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2025, passed by the Learned Addl. District Judge (CBI Court), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.42-S/13 of 2024, affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2023, passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Court No.8, District Shimla, HP, in Civil Suit No.100/2019. 2. The plaintiff purchased Flat No. 1, consisting of two bedrooms, one drawing room cum dining room, two toilets, one kitchen, and one balcony, with a total covered area of 83.37 square meters, situated on the ground floor of a four-storeyed building known as Block No. 1, Goel Apartment, built over Khasra No. 606 in Up Mohal, Sanjauli Bazaar, Shimla. The plaintiff acquired the flat from proforma defendant Smt. Manjeet Mahajan on 13.08.2015, vide Sale Deed No. 652/15, executed in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Urban, Shimla. The four- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 2025:HHC:20989 storeyed building was constructed by Shri Ajay Goel, who had sold six flats in the building to different individuals, with each vendee being provided one vehicle parking space on the parking floor constructed on the first floor of the building. Defendant No. 1 had also purchased a flat in the building from Shri Ajay Goel along with one vehicle parking space on the parking floor. Both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 used to park their vehicles in the parking floor, where a common lock was placed on the chain. At the time of purchase in 2015, one key to the common lock was handed over to the plaintiff, while the other remained with defendant No. 1. However, recently, defendant No. 1 threatened to replace the common lock with her personal lock, disregarding the plaintiff's requests and even engaging in a quarrel. The plaintiff lodged a complaint with the S.H.O., Police Station Dhalli, but no action was taken. The plaintiff, an elderly woman residing alone, apprehended that defendant No. 1, an influential lady residing with her family, would deprive her of the parking space by placing a personal lock on the chain. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 did put her personal lock on the iron chain of the ramp leading to the parking floor, which the plaintiff contends is illegal and unauthorized. The cause of action arose in September 2018 when defendant No. 1 first threatened to interfere with the parking space and continues to persist. 3 2025:HHC:20989 3. Proforma defendant No. 2 did not contest the suit and was proceeded against ex parte on 09.03.2020. Defendant No. 1, however, contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, non- joinder of necessary parties, estoppel, suppression of material facts, and the plaintiff not approaching the court with clean hands. While the purchase of the flat by the plaintiff from proforma defendant No. 2 was not specifically disputed, defendant No. 1 denied that the plaintiff was entitled to a parking space, arguing that since the plaintiff did not purchase the flat directly from Shri Ajay Goel, no parking space was allocated to her. Defendant No. 1 further contended that the plaintiff’s sale deed did not confer any right to parking and that the seller’s undertaking to provide parking space remained unfulfilled. She denied the existence of a common lock at the time of the plaintiff’s purchase and claimed that she had been continuously parking her vehicle in the space allotted to her since 2008. She also denied threatening the plaintiff or unlawfully placing a personal lock on the chain. Defendant No. 1 asserted that the building was divided into two sections— Sanjauli side and Dhalli side—and that occupants, except the plaintiff, used parking spaces as per their flat locations. She alleged that the plaintiff sought to disturb her settled parking rights under the guise of the suit. 4 2025:HHC:20989 4. The plaintiff did not file any replication. Based on the pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues on 20.09.2021. 1 – Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1, restraining her from interfering in the plaintiff’s parking space, as prayed? (OPP) 2 – Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a mandatory injunction against defendant No. 1 to remove the personal lock on the iron chain placed on the ramp of the parking floor or, alternatively, to provide a key to the plaintiff, as prayed? (OPP) 3 – Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant, as alleged? (OPD) 4 – Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? (OPD) 5 – Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit against the defendant due to her own acts, omissions, deeds, conduct, or acquiescence, as alleged? (OPD) 6 – Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed material facts, as alleged? (OPD) 7 – Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit against the defendants, as alleged? (OPD) 8 – Whether the suit lacks necessary particulars and is liable to be dismissed, as alleged? (OPD) 9. Relief. 5. The plaintiff examined herself and four witnesses in support of her case, while defendant No. 1 testified and examined two witnesses in her defense. After trial, the learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, restraining defendant No. 1 from interfering with the plaintiff’s parking space and directing defendant No. 1, via mandatory injunction, to remove the personal lock and iron chain from the ramp of the parking floor. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2023, defendant No. 1 filed a first appeal, contending that the judgment was contrary to facts and law, based on surmises, and failed to properly consider the evidence. It was 5 2025:HHC:20989 argued that the plaintiff never paid consideration, stamp duty, or registration fees for the parking space and that the valuation report did not include parking rights. Defendant No. 1 also asserted that the trial court misinterpreted the pleadings and evidence, particularly the sale deed clause (para 18), which only contained an undertaking by the seller to provide parking space but did not confer any vested right. 7. In response, the plaintiff’s counsel argued that the parking space remained with the builder, who pays license fee to the Municipal Corporation, and that the sale deed in Favour of the plaintiff explicitly included parking rights, as evidenced by Clauses 12 and 18. The plaintiff’s vendor, Smt. Manjeet Mahajan, had purchased the flat along with parking rights from the builder, Shri Ajay Goel. The trial court correctly appreciated the facts and law, and the appeal lacks merit. 8. Notice of appeal was issued, and while proforma defendant No. 2 did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte on 27.08.2024, the plaintiff contested the appeal. 9. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. 10. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, it emerges that the plaintiff purchased Flat No. 1 in Goel Apartments from proforma defendant No. 2, Smt. Manjeet Mahajan, through Sale Deed Ex. PW2/A. The building consists of six flats, and it is undisputed that all vendees were allotted 6 2025:HHC:20989 parking space for one vehicle on the parking floor. Defendant No. 1 contends that since the plaintiff did not purchase the flat directly from the original builder, Shri Ajay Goel, she has no right to the parking space. However, the evidence reveals that earmarked parking spaces were not strictly assigned to individual flat owners. Notably, DW3-Shri Amar Singh Chauhan, who does not own a flat in the building but possesses one nearby, was allotted a specific parking space through Sale Deed Ex. P-A. Similarly, PW4 Smt. Veena Gupta, a flat owner in the same building, was also provided a designated parking space, accessible through separate entries. 11. Clauses 12 and 18 of the sale deeds executed between Shri Ajay Goel and Smt. Manjeet Mahajan (Ex. PW5/A) and between Shri Ajay Goel and defendant No. 1, Smt. Zohra Qureshi (Ex. DW1/B), explicitly grant the purchasers the right to park one vehicle in the building’s parking floor, with the condition that the space remains uncovered and open. Defendant No. 1’s argument that the plaintiff lacks parking rights because she did not purchase the flat directly from Shri Ajay Goel is untenable, as the plaintiff acquired all rights, including parking, through the sale deed from proforma defendant No. 2. The valuation report attached to Ex. PW5/A confirms that the parking fee was paid by the original purchaser, and as testified by PW1 Shri Paras Ram, the 7 2025:HHC:20989 Municipal Corporation does not demand additional parking fees from subsequent buyers. 12. Regarding defendant No. 1’s actions, her admission in cross-examination establishes that she placed a personal lock on the common entry chain, restricting the plaintiff’s access to the parking area. This contravenes Clause 12 of her own sale deed (Ex. DW1/B), which mandates that the parking space remain open. Photographic evidence further reveals that defendant No. 1’s son parked a motorcycle alongside a car in the space, and a water tank was unlawfully placed there. The long-standing disputes between the parties, including a prior criminal complaint (Ex. D1) filed by the plaintiff, underscore the defendant’s interference with the plaintiff’s parking rights. 13. In light of the foregoing, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from obstructing her parking rights, as well as a mandatory injunction directing the removal of the unauthorized lock and chain. The findings on the issues are accordingly rendered in favor of the plaintiff. 14. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 02nd July, 2025 (T.B/Gaurav Rawat)