Delhi High Court
Subroto Ghose vs Ashok Kumar Gupta on 31 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996IIAD(DELHI)450, 1996(36)DRJ491
Author: Arun Kumar
Bench: Arun Kumar
JUDGMENT Arun Kumar, J.
(1) This order will dispose of two applications of the plaintiff being I.A. 5156/94 and I.A. 4343/95. The main prayer of the plaintiff in these applications is regarding appointment of a Receiver with respect to property no. 5, Ring Road, New Delhi (Khasra No.312, Village: Kilokri, Delhi). In I.A. 4343/95, the plaintiff has also sought certain other reliefs. However, I have taken these applications into considerations only for purposes of prayer of the plaintiff for appointment of a Receiver with respect to the said property. Regarding other reliefs, if any, available to the plaintiff, he may take steps separately.
(2) The facts giving rise to the present applications are as follows. Bhakta Kumar Ghose was admittedly the owner of the suit property by virtue of a duly registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1991 executed in his favour by one Mahabir Prashad Sanghi. The said Bhakta Kumar Ghose (BKG for short) had constructed a building upon the said plot no.5, Ring Road, New Delhi comprising two independent flats on the ground floor, two independent flats on the second floor and a Barsati apartment on the second floor besides two garages and four servants' quarters. Bkg died on 14th December, 1984. The plaintiff is the nephew of Bkg being son of his brother. Bkg was a bachelor and, therefore, did not leave behind any heir from his own lineage. The case of the plaintiff is that Bkg had executed a Will dated 9th June, 1962 which was duly registered in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar of Assurances, Alipur, Calcutta. By the said Will, Bkg had bequeathed the property in suit in favour of the plaintiff who was also appointed as executor of the Will. The plaintiff further submits that as executor of the Will, he performed various functions including payment of Estate Duty regarding the estate of BKG. The plaintiff also obtained probate of the said Will vide order dated 12th April, 1988 passed by the Calcutta High Court.
(3) Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff from Delhi, the defendants conspired to take illegal possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has, therefore, prayed that a Receiver be appointed to take possession of the suit property from the defendants. It is admitted in the plaint that in respect of two flats in the property in suit, Bkg had inducted tenants. One P.K.Das Gupta is a tenant in the front first floor flat of the property. In the front ground floor flat of the property, M.S.Bakshi had been inducted as a tenant. Against M.S.Bakshi, proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act had been instituted in the year 1986 by the present plaintiff in the court of the Rent Controller, Delhi for his eviction. Those proceedings are stated to be still pending as per averments contained in the plaint. M.S.Bakshi died in the year 1987 and his widow, defendant no.6 in the present suit and son, defendant no.7 in the present suit were substituted in those proceedings. The plaintiff has further stated that in November 1991, he filed a suit for injunction against defendants 6 and 7 in the Subordinate Court and the said suit is also pending.
(4) According to the plaintiff, he came to know about the illegal acts of the defendants in 1992. Till 1991, the property tax with respect to the suit property was regularly paid by the plaintiff as executor of the estate of BKG. When he did not receive the property tax bill with respect to the suit property for the year 1991-92, the plaintiff made inquiries in the office of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD for short) and through such inquiries, he came to know the illegal deeds and actions of the defendants. According to the plaintiff, he came to know that defendant no. 1 in the present suit filed an affidavit dated 3rd October, 1989 and an Indemnity Bond of the same date with the Mcd and sought mutation of the suit property in his favour on the basis of an alleged Will of Bkg in favour of defendant no. 1. No particulars or even date of the Will was mentioned nor a copy of the Will was filed. Mutation of the property in suit was allowed by the Mcd vide its letter dated 6th October, 1989 in favour of defendant no.1. On the basis of the alleged mutation, defendant no.1 purportedly sold the suit property to defendants 2 and 3 through two separate sale deeds both bearing the date 9th November, 1990. These sale deeds are purportedly registered with the Sub Registrar, Delhi. The sale deeds are the documents on the basis of which defendants 2 and 3 claim title to the suit property. On the basis of these sale deeds, it appears that defendants 2 and 3 sought mutation of the suit property in their favour which was granted by the Mcd on 22nd January, 1991. According to the plaintiff, all these documents are false and fabricated and do not pass or convey any title with respect to the suit property in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff filed the present suit for cancellation of all such documents and mutations as also for injunction etc. (5) The order sheet of this case is also quite revealing. The defendants could not be served in the normal course, The summons in the suit were sought to be served on them on a few occasions. Only appearance was entered on behalf of defendant no.5 on 15th September, 1993. Ultimately, this court ordered service of the defendants by way of substituted service through publication in newspaper. After the publication in the newspaper, counsel appeared for defendants 2 to 5. One counsel appeared for defendants 2, 3 and 5 while a separate counsel appeared for defendant no.4. The order sheet further reveals that for defendant no.4, it is only rarely that appearance has been put by a counsel. Written statement has been filed only by defendants 2 and 3 (jointly) and by defendant no.5. No written statement has been filed by defendant no.4. Defendants 1 and 6 and 7 have been proceeded ex-parte. The court has made various attempts to ensure attendance of defendant no.1 in person in court. Even bailable warrants were issued for production of defendant no.1 in court but the warrants remain unexecuted because defendant no.1 was never traceable. Direction was given to defendants 2 and 3 to furnish the correct present whereabouts of defendant no.1 which defendants 2 and 3 never complied. They never furnished any particulars or whereabouts of defendant no.l to the court inspite of orders. The plaintiff issued several public notices in bold print at eminent places in daily newspapers calling upon Ashok Kumar Gupta, defendant no.l to appear in court in this case in compliance of court orders. Neither Ashok Kumar Gupta nor any one else appeared claiming interest in the suit property inspite of the notices. Even defendants 2 and 3 failed to appear in court inspite of directions regarding their personal appearance on various occasions. Defendants 2 and 3 on various occasions were directed by the court to produce the original sale deeds which they claim to be executed in their favour by defendant no.1 on the basis whereof they claim title to the suit property. The said defendants have failed to produce the original sale deeds so far. The court directed that at least they should say on affidavit as to where the sale deeds are and what has happened to them if they are not available for production in court. That question was avoided by the defendants by admitting the correctness of the copies of the sale deeds Filed by the plaintiff in court. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the original sale deeds are being held back from the court to conceal the identity of defendant no.l because as per the rules then in force in Delhi regarding registration of documents, photograph of the vendor was required to be placed on the sale deeds. the sale deeds dated 9th November, 1990 must have the photographs of defendant no.1. The defendants do not want the identity of defendant no.l to be established. It is further stated that in the copies of the sale deeds in the Sub Registrar's office, only a photo copy of the photograph of defendant no.1 has been filed which is smudged and from which it is difficult to make out who that person is. On 10th August, 1994, the counsel for defendants 2 and 3 was directed by this court to file an affidavit of the whereabouts of the original sale deeds dated 9th November, 1990. On 9th December, 1994, bailable warrants were directed to be issued for production of defendant No.1 in Court. On 17th January, 1995 defendants 2 and 3 were directed to furnish full particulars of defendant No. 1 to the court so that bailable warrants directed to be issued for production of defendant No. 1 could be excuted. Defendants did not supply the particulars and, therefore, the warrants remained un-excuted. Relying on these facts, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that defendant No. 1 is a fictitious person introduced only to complete the illegal transaction regarding the suit property.
(6) Defendants 2 and 3 have filed a written statement while defendant No. 5 has filed a separate written statement. Both the written statements are more or less on the same lines. Firstly emphasis in the written statements is on the locus standi of the plaintiff to institute the suit. The defendants submit that the plaintiff is nobody and has no right in the suit property and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. So far as their right, title or interest in the suit property is concerned, the defense is only based on the averment that the suit property was purchased by defendants 2 and 3 from the defendnat No 1 on the basis of duly registered sale deeds dated 9th November, 1990. The defendants further stated that except the portion in the tenancy of P.K. Dasgupta and M.S. Bakshi, rest of the property was in possession of Ashok Kumar Gupta, defendant no.1. The defendants have further stated that Bkg had executed various documents including Attorney and Will whereby he bequeathed the property in suit to Ashok Kumar Gupta who got the property mutated in his name in the Municipal records. Defendants 2 and 3 claim to be bona fide purchasers of the property from Ashok Kumar Gupta by virtue of duly registered sale deeds dated 9th November, 1990. The defendants also alleged that they had further sold the property without disclosing any names or particulars of persons to whom it was sold. Even the dates of such sales have not been disclosed. Defendant No. 5 claims to be a tenant inducted in the property by the other defendants.
(7) Learned counsel for the plaintiff has in support of his case highlighted the following facts:
(I)Mutation of the suit property in favour of defendant No. 1 in 1981 by the MCD. The mutation was sought on the basis of alleged Will of Bkg in favour of Ashok Kumar Gupta. The Will never saw the light of the day. No date or particulars of the Will were mentioned nor copy thereof was filed. The mutation was clearly in collusion with the Mcd staff.
(II)Claiming ownership on the basis of the Mcd mutation, defendant No. 1 allegedly executed two sale deeds dated 9th November, 1990 for a consideration of Rs. 3.25 lacs each in favour of defendants 2 and 3 respectively and got the same registered also. The two sale deeds are on non-judicial stamp papers purchased together. They were executed and presented for registration simultaneously. The sale deeds raise following questions : (a) In normal course, the sale deeds are drafted tracing the title of the vendor whereas in the present case, the sale deeds merely mention as under: "Where as the vendor is absolute owner and in part possession of a free hold Built Property bearing no.5, comprised in Khasra No.3l2, situated at Ring Road, Kilorkari, New Delhi, Opp. Maharani Bagh, on the basis of mutation carried out by Assistant and Tax Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Lajpat Nagar Zone, New Delhi, vide their letter -no. TAX/NDZ/89/4186 dated 8.10.1989 consequent upon the death of Shri Bhakta Kumar Ghose son of late Joges Chandra Ghose, who was owner of the said property"
This shows that the title of the vendor is only based on the mutation by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
(B)The sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed is Rs.3.25 lacs which is stated to have been paid as under: RS.2,50,000through Davinder Singh, the vendee in the second sale deed vide cheque no.6094352 dated 8th March, 1990 drawn on Canara Bank Rs.75,000--in cash.
IT is interesting to note that in the second sale deed in favour of Davinder Singh also, the sale consideration is purpoted to have been paid in the same manner, i.e., Rs.2.50 lacs through cheque in favour of Davinder Singh and Rs.75,000 in cash. The cheque mentioned in both the sale deeds is the same bearing the same date and on the same bank and for the same amount This means that one cheque has been mentioned regarding payment qua both the sale deeds. In the written statement, the defendants 2 and 3 have tried to explain this by saying that there were two cheques involved and it is a typographical error that only one cheque has been mentioned. This plea is belied by the narration in the sale deed in favour of Rohtas Kumar in which it is stated that the payment of Rs.2,50,000.00 has been received through Davinder Singh, i.e., the vendee in the second sale deed and cheque number etc. is the same. Therefore, there is no scope for the argument about typing error. Further it has been disclosed through the Canara Bank, Ghaziabad, i.e., the drawee bank mentioned in the sale deeds that the said cheque was dishonoured because only a sum of Rs.l53.00 was lying in the credit of the account of Davinder Singh and the bank had to dishonour the cheque. Copy of the bank's endorsement slip has also been placed on record and the reason for dishonour is "referred to drawer". All this shows that in fact no consideration passed for the alleged sale transaction.
(C)No names of the tenants in the property are mentioned in the sale deeds which is contrary to the normal practice for drafting such documents.
(D)On the basis of said sale deeds, further mutation was sought in the Mod records in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and the Mcd 'obligingly' granted the mutation forthwith. The Mcd did this ignoring the request of the plaintiff regarding mutation of the same property in his favour.
(E)It is stated that the total consideration of Rs.6.50 lacs for a property constructed on a free hold plot on an area about 1600 sq. yards was itself an illusory consideration in the year 1990. The property was much more valuable.
(F)In the sale deed, the address of the vendor is given as that of the suit property. Thus, the real address of defendant no.1 has been concealed. This only supports the plea that defendant No.1 is not a real person. It is a case of a fictitious person being set up to complete the fraud.
(8) On the above basis, the plaintiffs learned counsel submits that the entire case of the defendants is based on falsehood, fraud, fabrication of documents and setting up a fictitious person in the name of defendant no.1. The defendants have committed criminal acts. They have no right to remain in possession of the property even for a single moment. Therefore, it is a Fit case in which a Receiver ought to be appointed to take possession of the suit property.
(9) Regarding the alleged attorney and Will in favour of defendant no.1 by Bkg, it is submitted that those documents have also so far not seen the light of the day. Not even the date of the alleged documents has been disclosed. They are false and fictitious documents which have been mentioned just to get the mutation in favour of defendant no.1 in the first instance. The mutation was carried out in collusion with the Mcd staff. It is further pointed out that Bkg died in December 1984. The Will, if any, in favour of Ashok Kumar Gupta has to be of a date prior to that. Ashok Kumar Gupta came on the scene for the first time in October 1989 when he applied for mutation of the property. Till then, he was nowhere. The suit property was a free hold property and there was no impediment for its transfer if Bkg wanted to transfer the same in favour of Ashok Kumar Gupta during his life time. The device of Will and power of attorney is adopted generally in cases of lease hold property for their transfer. Even such transfers are accompanied by transfer of possession of the property. Bkg was admittedly managing the property till he was alive. Therefore, the Will and power of attorney theory does not hold water.
(10) Further, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff the ground floor rear flat was in possession of the plaintiff till the conspiracy was hatched by the defendants and they took possession thereof. Regarding first floor rear flat, the plaintiff claims that it has his locks and the same is in his possession. However, it is staled that defendants do not permit the plaintiff to enjoy the said flat by holding out various threats. Same is the position regarding barsati floor. The defendants arc using strong arm tactics to deprive the plaintiff of use and enjoyment of his property.
(11) In reply, the learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3 has mainly urged that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and, therefore, the suit must fail. It is further staled that in such a suit no relief can be granted to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendants and 3 has submitted that the 1962 Will on which the present suit is based was superseded by a Will of Bkg made in 1974. The 1974 Will revokes the 1962 Will of BKG. In 1982, BKG. is slated to have executed yet another Will revoking his previous Wills. It is submitted, therefore, that when the very basis Of the suit, i.e., 1962 Will of Bkg stands superseded, the plaintiffs locus standi to file the present suit goes and the suit has to be dismissed. Secondly, it has been urged on behalf of the said defendants that the defendants have repeatedly sought directions for production of plaintiff in court for his examination regarding his locus standi to file the present suit and the plaintiff has failed to appear. Therefore, till the plaintiff is examined, the hearing of the applications should be held over. The third submission on behalf of the defendants is that on an application I.A.4343/95 filed by the plaintiff, this court specifically declined the prayer for appointment of Receiver on 23rd May, 1995. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot now ask for appointment of a Receiver. The said order according to the defendant has become final. On merits of the case, the learned counsel for the defendants had nothing to say. On my pointedly asking him about his defense and about reply to the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff on merits of the case as noted hereinbefore, the learned counsel for (he defendant specifically stated that he did not want to.say anything nor he wanted to give reply to any of the plaintiffs arguments.
(12) In the facts and circumstances of e case, the learned counsel for the defendants appears to have rightly decided not to say anything on the merits of the case. Prima facie, on merits, the defendants have nothing to say. The arguments on behalf of plaintiff proceed on the basis of the record and the record speaks volumes about the conduct of the defendants and it is not easy or at least at this stage possible to justify the conduct of the defendants. The allegations against the defendants prima facie show that it is a case of grabbing another's properly through illegal means. Defendants 2 to 5 prima factice appear to have hatched a criminal conspiracy to grab the suit property by preparing false and fabricated documents. They have defiled the sanctity of the official records by seeking mutation of the suit property firstly in favour of defendant no.1 and thereafter in favour of defendants 2 and 3 on the basis of false and fabricated documents. Their acts have led to falsification of official records. They have forcibly occupied the suit properly and prevented the plaintiff from use and enjoyment thereof.
(13) Prima facie, it appears that defendant no. 1 is a factious person and this character has been created only to complete the illegal transaction. Even registration of false and fabricated sale deeds dated 9th November, 1990 has been obtained thereby leading to falsification of official record. Moreover, even in this court the conduct of defendants, particularly particularly 2 and 3, is one of blatant defiance. These defendants have shown scant respect for the orders and directions of this court. Inspite of various directions of the court. defendants 2 and 3 never appeared in court in person nor they cared to file the original sale deeds in court. They did not disclose the whereabouts of defendant no.1 inspite of specific orders of this court. The conduct of defendants 2 to 5 is of plain and simple defiance. They have shown that they have no respect for the courts established under the law and thus they have no respect for law.
(14) Coming to the points raised on behalf of the defendants, first I would like to deal with the question of locus slander of the plaintiff to file the present suit. Till Bkg was alive, i.e., 14th December, 1984, he was the absolute owner of the suit property. After his death, the present plaintiff who is nephew of Bkg claims to be the owner. The plaintiff further claims that he has been performing all the acts as a owner of the property since the death of BKG. The plaintiff claims that he paid the estate duty of this property after the death of BKG. The plaintiff filed proceedings for grant of probate with respect to the Will of Bkg dated 9th June, 1962 in the Calcutta High Court. In the 1962 Will, the plaintiff is an executor and the suit properly has been bequeathed in his favour. Proceedings against the tenant for recovery of rent was filed in the court of the Rent Controller, Delhi by the plaintiff in 1986. Plaintiff claims to have been paying the property tax with respect to the suit property after the death of Bkg and till the year 1991 whereafter the mutation was got done with respect to the suit property by the defendants in the name of defendant no.1 in the Municipal records. The documents relating to the title to the property come from the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been paying Income Tax on the rental income of the property and has been showing this in his own Wealth Tax Returns. If the property in suit had been bequeathed by Bkg in favour of Ashok Kumar Gupta, defendant no.1, as claimed by defendants 2 and 3 and some deed of attorney had been executed in his favour by Bkg, Ashok Kumar Gupta would have immediately after the death of Bkg started exercising rights with respect to the property which he never did till the year 1989/90.
(15) As already noted, the plaintiff had filed proceedings for grant of probate with respect to the Will of Bkg dated 9th June, 1962 in the Calcutta High Court. It appears that there was some litigation between the plaintiff and other heirs of Bkg during course of which other two Wills purpoted to have been executed by Bkg came to light. One of them is a Will of 1974. Under the said Will also, the suit property is bequeathed to the plaintiff. Under the 1982 Will of Bkg also, the plaintiff was appointed as the sole executor. Under the said Will also, the plaintiff has been given the right to deal with and manage the suit property. Therefore, the defendants are not correct in their submission that by subsequent Wills of Bkg, the plaintiff lost any right which he had under the Will of Bkg of the year 1962 with respect to the suit property. It has been further brought to light that disputes and differences have arisen between heirs/beneficiaries of the estate of BKG. Ultimately, all the members decided to amicably settle the matter through arbitration. Shri H.N. Ray, I.C.S., former Union Finance Secretary was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator gave his Award on 24th May, 1988. The Award was made a rule of the court on 30th April, 1993 with some modifications by the Calcutta High Court. As per the said Award also, the suit properly fell to the share of the present plaintiff. The heirs of Bkg had arrived at a settlement. The parties filed a settlement before the Calcutta High Court on 30th April, 1993 on the basis of which the Award of the Sole Arbitrator was made a rule of the court with certain modifications. As per the settlement which has become part of the decree passed by the Calcutta High Court making the Award rule of the court, the suit property falls to the share of the plaintiff in the present suit. From this declaration, it is clear at least for present purposes that the plaintiff has legal and valid title to the property. The plea of the defendants that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit is totally frivolous and is solely intended to prolong this litigation.
(16) Regarding the second contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that the present application for appointment of Receiver should be considered only after the plaintiff has appeared in court in pursuance of the applications moved by the defendants in this behalf, firstly it is to be noted that there is no legal bar to my disposing of this application before disposing the said applications of the defendants. Secondly, the plaintiff has offered to appear in court as and when called upon to do so. This plea of the defendants appears again to be solely aimed at ensuring that the present application is not heard. The defendants want to postpone the hearing because they are fully aware of the strength (or weakness) of their case and want to continue in possession of the suit properly as long as possible.
(17) The third contention on behalf of the defendants is based on the order dated 23rd May, 1995 passed by this court declining the prayer regarding appointment of a Receiver. The defendants contend that in view of the said order, there is no occasion to consider the prayer for appointment of a Receiver afresh. For this it is to be noted that on 23rd May, 1995, I.A.4343/95 had come up before the court. In the said application, the plaintiff had sought other reliefs also along with a prayer for appointment of Receiver. At that stage this court felt that interest of justice would be best served if a local commissioner was appointed to inspect the premises and to report the present position. This has to be considered in the context of the allegations contained in the said application regarding the conduct of defendants 2 to 5 in committing breach of injunctions orders dated 22nd February, 1993 and 10th August, 1994. The plaintiff had also prayed that unauthorised structures built by the said defendants in contravention of the court's orders be demolished forthwith. Apparently, this court felt that a local commissioner was first required to be appointed in the said circumstances and order was accordingly passed for that. But that does not mean that the application was finally disposed of. The defendants were given lime to file reply to the said application and the hearing of the application was adjourned. Obviously at that stage without giving opportunity to defendants to file reply to the application, the Court was not inclined to appoint a Receiver. Therefore, the order dated 23rd May, 1995 was only an interim order passed on I.A.4343/95. The application was kepi pending for final disposal. The interim order passed on 23rd May, 1995 cannot be said to be a final order on the aspect of appointment of Receiver. Thus I am unable to accept the contention that the order dated 23rd May, 1995 concludes the issue so tar as question of appointment of Receiver is concerned. The said order does not preclude this Court from considering appointment of a Receiver with respect to the property in suit.
(18) Thus, I do not find any merit or substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the defendants in response to the prayer of the plaintiff seeking appointment of a Receiver.
(19) The next question is what should be the appropriate order to be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts noted above show that the present is not a routine case of a suit for possession filed by an owner against a licence after expiry of the licence period. It is also not a case of possession of property being sought from a person whose possession though initially authorised, has become unauthorised on the day of institution of the suit. It is a case of grabbing of a valuable immoveable property through criminal acts. It is a very serious matter where the defendants 1 to 5 have prima facie included in criminal conspiracy, fraud, fabrication of documents, collusion and deceit knowingly and intentionally using false and fabricated documents to falsify public records. Such blatant acts deserve to be dealt with through strong and effective measures. The defendants cannot be permitted to continue to enjoy the fruits of their illegal acts. They do not deserve to remain in possession of the suit property even for a single day any further. It will be a travesty of justice to ask the plaintiff to wait till the final decision of the suit when a decree for possession may be ultimately passed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel it eminently, just and convenient to appoint a Receiver to take possession of the suit property and to manage the same. I appoint Shri B.R. Ahuja, Advocate (retired Joint Registrar of this Court) as the Receiver with respect to property in suit, i.e" 5, Ring Road, New Delhi (Khasra No.312, Village: Kilokri, Delhi). The Receiver will take physical possession of the entire properly. With respect to flats on the front side, ground floor and first floor, he will take notional possession. He will realise the rent of the front side first floor flat while with respect to the front side ground floor flat he will proceed with the cases pending before the Rent Controller or civil courts. The Receiver will take actual physical possession of the rest of the entire properly. The Receiver will be entitled to full police assistance for purposes of taking physical possession of portions of property as mentioned above including breaking open .of doors and locks. The Deputy Commissioner of Police of the area is directed to provide full police assistance to the Receiver in completing this assignment.
(20) An authenticated copy of this order be given to the Receiver for being handed over to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police for complaince. I am sure that the Deputy Commissioner of Police will act in the matter with due despatch and personally see to it that this order is complied with forthwith. The Receiver will submit his first report within two weeks.
(21) The Receiver should be paid initially a fee of Rs.10,000.00 besides actual expenses by the plaintiff. Further fee of the Receiver will be fixed with reference to the amount of work involved.
(22) ' List on 16th February, 1996.
(23) Both the applications stand disposed of.
(24) The above decision is based on a prima facie view of the facts on record at present and will be subject to the final decision in the suit.