Delhi District Court
Ms. Madhu vs . Sh. Hari Chand on 17 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, CIVIL JUDGE10
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO. 83/14
Ms. Madhu Vs. Sh. Hari Chand
ORDER:
1. This order shall decide the application of the plaintiff U/o 39 R 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC whereby the plaintiff has sought the relief of adinterim injunction restraining the defendant, her agents, representatives and assignees, from disturbing the status quo in any manner whatsoever and from parting with possession of the suit premises i.e. one room situated on the second floor of property no. 10338, Manak Pura, Pathshala Wali, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 5 (shown in red in the site plan) during the pendency of the suit or otherwise creating any third party charge over the suit premises without due recourse of law.
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits claiming to be the absolute owner of the property bearing no. 10338, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 5 and contends that she has purchased the same from the erstwhile owners Sh. Ram Singh and Sh. Veer Singh both sons of Late Lal Chand by means of a registered sale deed dated Suit No. 83/14 Ms. Madhu Vs. Sh. Hari Chand 1/6 26.10.2013. It is contended that the defendant is an unauthorized occupant in the suit property and has been refusing to pay either the damages or mesne profits for such unauthorized and illegal occupation of the suit premises. Police complaint and FIR were also pending against the defendant. Legal notice dated 03.02.2014 was served on the defendant but the defendant refused to vacate the premises. The defendant had threatened to induct some undesirable elements into the suit premises therefore the present suit was filed.
3. The defendant has filed the written statement wherein preliminary objections have been taken. It is inter alia contended that the plaintiff does not have any legal right/title or interest and locus standi to file the present suit. It is averred that the sale deed dated 26.10.2013 is a collusive and fraudulent document and the plaintiff is having the actual and constructive knowledge of the judicial proceedings/suit for declaration and permanent injunction instituted by the defendant against Sh. Bhupender Rai son of Sh. Veer Singh, Sh. Veer Singh, son of Sh. Dal Chand and Sh. Ram Singh, son of Sh. Dal Chand which is pending for trial. It is contended that the plaintiff is not a bonafide purchaser against lawful consideration. It is averred that the defendant is the true and lawful owner of the property. The claim of the defendant basically is that Sh. Ram Singh and Sh. Veer Singh were left with Suit No. 83/14 Ms. Madhu Vs. Sh. Hari Chand 2/6 no legal right or interest of ownership and possession in respect of the said property and were not having any authority and power to execute the sale deed dated 26.10.2013. It is contended that Sh. Bhupender Singh, Sh. Veer Singh and Sh. Ram Singh were the owners of the suit property and they had approached the defendant to sell to the defendant a portion of the property. Sh. Veer Singh and Sh. Ram Singh had represented to the defendant that they had executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of Sh. Bhupender Rai to enter into the sale transaction and to execute the title deeds in respect of the said property. He had shown the Special Power of Attorney to the defendant for entering into the sale transaction. The defendant also contends that Sh. Veer Singh and Sh. Ram Singh had assured to the defendant that Sh. Bhupender Rai had express and implied authority and their consent to enter into sale transaction and execute title deeds. The defendant had agreed to purchase the property against valuable sale consideration and a receipt dated 05.07.2007 was executed by Sh. Bhupender Rai after accepting the consideration amount of Rs. 80,000/ from the defendant. Sh. Bhupender Kumar accepted the consideration amount on behalf of himself and Sh. Veer Singh and Sh. Ram Singh, and executed notarized GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit etc. all dated 12.07.2007. On the basis of these documents the defendant claims to have become the owner. It Suit No. 83/14 Ms. Madhu Vs. Sh. Hari Chand 3/6 is contended that the criminal case had been filed by Sh. Veer Singh and Sh. Ram Singh dishonestly in collusion and connivance with Sh. Bhupender Rai. The plaintiff's claim has been basically denied.
4. In the reply to the application U/o 39 R 1 & 2 CPC the defendant has strongly opposed the same and has prayed for its dismissal.
5. Oral arguments were advanced by counsel for the parties. It was inter alia contended by counsel for defendant that in the suit filed by the defendant for declaration the defendant therein i.e. Sh. Bhupender Rai had in his written statement admitted having executed the documents in favour of the defendant and also had admitted that he had authority from Sh. Veer Singh from whom the plaintiff claims to have purchased the said property and referred to the copy of the written statement of Sh. Bhupender Rai filed in the said suit in this regard. Counsel for defendant also referred to a photocopy of an Ekrarnama arguing that the same was executed by Sh. Bhupender Rai in favour of the defendant. It was argued by counsel for defendant that the purported sale deed of the plaintiff was a fabricated document. On the other hand counsel for plaintiff argued that in fact Sh. Bhupender Rai had no authority to sell the suit premises and he claimed that the documents on which the defendant was relying were in fact have fabricated but at this stage, the plaintiff was basically praying for temporary Suit No. 83/14 Ms. Madhu Vs. Sh. Hari Chand 4/6 injunction restraining the defendant from creating third party interest in the suit premises.
6. Heard and perused.
7. The question of genuineness of the documents which exist in favour of either party as also the question of forgery or manipulation of the documents is a matter of trial. It is however the admitted position that the defendant is in possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff is relying on a purported registered sale deed executed by Sh. Veer Singh and Sh. Ram Singh in the plaintiff's favour and a scrutiny of the written statement reveals that the defendant admits Sh. Ram Singh and Sh. Veer Singh to be the erstwhile owners of the suit property in question albeit contending that Sh. Bhupender Rai had already sold the suit property to the defendant since he had the authority to sell the property from Sh. Veer Singh and Sh. Ram Singh. The documents on which the defendant relies are mostly notarized, although there is a copy of purportedly registered GPA dated 12.07.2007 which is also claimed to be executed by Sh. Bhupender Rai in favour of the defendant. The fact of the matter is that the plaintiff is relying on a registered sale deed purportedly executed by Sh. Ram Singh and Sh. Veer Singh themselves in her favour. Prima facie the plaintiff's case is on a better footing than that of the defendants. It is well settled law that prima facie case does not mean Suit No. 83/14 Ms. Madhu Vs. Sh. Hari Chand 5/6 prima facie title and at the stage of deciding an interim injunction application the court is not supposed to hold a mini trial. The plaintiff has a prima facie case good for trial. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff since in case the defendant is not restrained from creating third party interest in the suit property it would lead to multiplicity of litigation and unnecessary complications and delay in the suit proceedings.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion the defendant, her agents, etc. are restrained from parting with possession of the suit premises or creating any third party interest/charge in the suit premises during the pendency of the suit. The application of the plaintiff U/o 39 R 1 & 2 CPC accordingly stands allowed. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Announced in the open court ANJANI MAHAJAN
On 17.07.2014 Civil Judge - 10 (Central)
17.07.2014
Suit No. 83/14 Ms. Madhu Vs. Sh. Hari Chand 6/6