Delhi High Court
Sh. Chet Ram Gupta vs Smt. Motian Devi Lamba on 6 November, 2013
Author: P.K.Bhasin
Bench: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 6th November, 2013
% I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989
# SH. CHET RAM GUPTA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Advocate
VERSUS
$ SMT.MOTIAN DEVI LAMBA ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. P. Choudhary, Adv. for D-1
Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Nandini Sahni, Adv. for
D-2-4.
AND
I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010
# MOTIAN DEVI LAMBA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. P. Choudhary, Advocate
VERSUS
$ CHET RAM GUPTA (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LRs AND OTHERS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Adv. for D-1
Mr. Ashok Bhasin, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Nandini Sahni, Adv. for D-2 to 5
I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989 & I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010 Page 1 of 11
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
This common order shall dispose of two separate applications filed by different parties in these two suits for appointment of a Receiver in respect of one property in Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi(to be referred as 'the suit property' hereinafter).
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the two applications under Order XL C.P.C. are that the suit property was purchased by Smt. Motian Devi, who is the plaintiff in suit no.2147 of 2010(reference to which shall hereinafter be made as 'Motian Devi's suit) and defendant no.1 in suit no. 2818 of 1989 which was filed by one Chet Ram Gupta who died during he pendency of his suit(reference to which suit shall hereinafter be made as 'Chet Ram's suit) from M/s DLF Ltd. in the year 1973. She shifted to England and settled there but committed a blunder by leaving this country without selling her property in the I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989 & I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010 Page 2 of 11 prime locality of New Delhi and making it available for the land grabbers to grab it illegally in her absence from the country.
3. In October, 2010 Motian Devi filed a suit for recovery of the suit property from the legal heirs of Chet Ram Gupta and for many other reliefs on the allegations that her son-in-law visited her in London in February,2010 and informed her that he had visited the suit property in January,2010 and had found that the suit property had been grabbed by Chet Ram Gupta, who is being represented in her suit by her legal heirs since he had died before the filing of the suit by her, Ravi Prakash Gupta, who is also being represented in her suit by his legal heirs as he had also died before the filing of the suit by her, one V.P.Gupta, defendant no.2 and Dr.G.S.Gupta, defendant no.4(who also died in Novembe,2010) by forging certain documents purporting to have been executed by her. It was further pleaded by Motian Devi that her son-in- law had also informed her that Chet Ram had illegally taken over the possession of the suit property and he had also filed a collusive suit for specific performance of some agreement to sell(being suit no.2818 of 1989) impleading her as defendant no.1 on the allegations that she had agreed to sell to him the suit property in the year 1986 through I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989 & I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010 Page 3 of 11 one S.P.Gupta, who is defendant no.3 in her suit. Then she engaged an advocate and came to know that the above-named Dr.G.S.Gupta(now dead) and late Ravi Prakash Gupta were claiming in Chet Ram's suit that Motian Devi had in fact gifted the suit property to them in the year 1987. Motian Devi also claimed that on the basis of a forged power of attorney she was being represented in Chet Ram's suit by one V.P. Gupta, defendant no.2 in her suit. Alleging that she had neither agreed to sell the suit property to Chet Ram Gupta nor had she executed any gift deed in favour of Dr.G.S. Gupta and Ravi Prakash Gupta, as was being claimed by them, she prayed for passing of a decree of cancellation of all the documents which were being relied upon by late Chet Ram Gupta in support of his prayer in his suit for specific performance of agreement to sell purporting to have been executed by her and also for cancellation of the documents being relied upon by Dr. G.S. Gupta and Ravi Prakash Gupta in support of their claim that she had gifted the suit property to them in the year 1987. Since it was also being claimed by Motian Devi as well as S.P.Gupta, Dr.R.S.Gupta and V.P.Gupta('Gupta Brothers') that late Chet Ram had illegally taken over the possession of the suit property in the year 1989 a decree for I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989 & I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010 Page 4 of 11 recovery of possession of the suit property was also claimed by Motian Devi in her suit against the legal heirs of late Chet Ram Gupta. She claimed that prior to February,2010 she was not aware about the collusive Chet Ram's suit and that she was unauthorisedly being represented in that suit by V.P.Gupta.
4. Alongwith the plaint Motian Devi had also filed the application for the appointment of a Receiver alleging that since the defendants had forged various documents to usurp her property and late Chet Ram Gupta had unauthorisedly taken over the possession of the suit property it was essential to appoint a Receiver for taking over the possession of the suit property from the legal heirs of late Chet Ram Gupta.
5. The suit as well as the application for appointment of Receiver filed Motian Devi were hotly contested by the legal heirs of late Chet Ram Gupta, V.P. Gupta(defendant no.2 in Motian Devian's suit and who has been representing Motian Devi in Chet Ram's suit as her attorney), legal heir of late Ravi Prakash Gupta( defendant no.5 Madhu Gupta in Motian Devi's suit) and S.P. Gupta(defendant no.3 in Motian I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989 & I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010 Page 5 of 11 Devi's suit), who as per the case of the deceased Chet Ram Gupta was instrumental in bringing about the sale deal between him and Motian Devi. The suit and application for appointment of Receiver filed on behalf of Motian Devi through her attorney are being opposed, inter alia, on the grounds that Motian Devi has no prima facie case in her favour and her case is based on total falsehood and was hopelessly time barred also. Late Chet Ram Gupta has been claiming that Motian Devi was trying to wriggle out of the agreement to sell with him in conspiracy with Gupta brothers. The legal heirs of Chet Ram Gupta have claimed in their reply to the application for appointment of Receiver that it had been got moved by defendant nos. 2 to 5 to dispossess them. Dr. G.S. Gupta and Ravi Prakash Gupta have been claiming that Motian Devi had gifted to them the suit property in the year 1987 and thereafter she was trying to wriggle out of that gift transaction in conspiracy with Chet Ram Gupta. It is also being claimed by them as well as S.P. Gupta that late Chet Ram Gupta had trespassed into the suit property in the year 1989 after filing his suit for specific performance and obtaining an injunction order in that suit. This is their I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989 & I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010 Page 6 of 11 defence in Chet Ram's suit also in which suit also they were impleaded as defendants besides Motian Devi.
6. Before the application filed on behalf of Motian Devi in her suit for appointment of Receiver could be disposed of similar application for appointment of Receiver came to be moved in Chet Ram's suit for specific performance(suit no.2818/1989) on behalf of S.P.Gupta, V.P. Gupta and Madhu Gupta, who as noticed already, had opposed the appointment of Receiver in Motian Devi's suit. They sought appointment of Receiver on the ground that even though in Chet Ram's suit there was a stay order dated 23.10.1989 in operation against sale etc. of the suit property by Motian Devi and other defendants in that suit Motian Devi had through her attorney sold the suit property in collusion with the legal heirs of late Chet Ram Gupta in breach of the injunction order. That sale transaction with one Ms. Anju Malhan is also being claimed to be a sham transaction and that Dr. G.S. Gupta and Ravi Prakash Gupta, defendant nos.2 and 4 respectively(both of whom are now dead and are being represented by their respective legal heirs), continue to be the owners of the suit property by virtue of gift deed executed in their favour by Motian Devi. They have also I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989 & I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010 Page 7 of 11 alleged that the suit filed by Motian Devi is also a collusive suit of Motian Devi and the legal heirs of late Chet Ram Gupta. So, it is claimed in the application for appointment of Receiver that it has become necessary to appoint a Receiver to preserve and protect the suit property till the disposal of Chet Ram's suit, in which suit Gupta brothers had in fact filed a counter claim also seeking a decree of possession of the suit property against late Chet Ram Gupta.
7. Legal heirs of late Chet Ram Gupta are opposing this application also on the ground that they are in lawful possession of the suit property and further that the alleged sale transaction was entered into by Motian Devi's attorney at the behest of Gupta brothers to illegally disturb their settled possession. They have also claimed that after the sale agreement between Chet Ram Gupta and Motian Devi in 1986 Dr. G.S. Gupta and Ravi Prakash Gupta had by playing fraud managed to get a gift deed executed in their favour from Motian Devi.
8. During the course of hearing on the two applications for appointment of Receiver the aforesaid submissions only were I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989 & I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010 Page 8 of 11 advanced on behalf of the legal heirs of Chet Ram Gupta, Motian Devi and Gupta brothers.
9. In my view, however, there is no need of appointing any Receiver at the present moment either at the instance of Motian Devi or Gupta brothers. In none of the two applications for appointment of Receiver it has been claimed by the applicants that possession of the suit property stands handed over to any third party either by Motian Devi or the legal heirs of Chet Ram Gupta in breach of the injunction order passed in Chet Ram's suit in the year 1989. It is now well settled that a Receiver in respect of some immovable property can be appointed only if there is any danger to that property. In the application filed by Motian Devi the only reason given is that her signatures had been forged on many documents. These allegations are being disputed by the legal heirs of Chet Ram Gupta and Gupta brothers and the same have to be established by evidence to be led from both the sides. That, however, cannot be a ground for taking over the possession of the suit property from the legal heirs of Chet Ram Gupta, who, as per the case of Motian Devi as well as Gupta brothers was actually in possession thereof since the year 1989. Therefore, all of a sudden his possession I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989 & I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010 Page 9 of 11 cannot be disturbed by appointing a Receiver for taking over the possession from the legal heirs of Chet Ram Gupta. As far as the application filed by Gupta brothers is concerned, even in that application it was simply pleaded that a sale deed had been executed by Motian Devi through her attorney in favour of one Ms. Anju Malhan in June,2012 and further that that sale deed is void and non-est since Motian Devi stood restrained from alienating the suit property. It is their own stand that sale deed of June,2012 is only a paper transaction. It has not been claimed in the application that possession of the suit property also stands handed over by Motian Devi in collusion with the legal heirs of Chet Ram Gupta to Ms. Anju Malhan or anyone else. Though in the replication to the reply of the legal heirs of Chet Ram Gupta to their counter claim Gupta brothers have claimed that possession of the suit property has been handed over to the purchaser but prima facie that assertion cannot be accepted as correct since they have not so far sought a decree of possession from the purchaser in their counter claim in Chet Ram's suit. Even Motian Devi is not seeking a decree of possession against any other party except the legal heirs of Chet Ram Gupta. So long as the physical possession of the suit property I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989 & I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010 Page 10 of 11 remains with the legal heirs of late Chet Ram Gupta the suit property cannot be said to be in any kind of danger even if on papers some kind of transaction is shown to have been entered into with third parties by any of the parties to these two suits.
10. So, there being no danger to the suit property at the present moment from any quarter these applications are dismissed.
Copy of this order shall be kept in the file of Motian Devi's suit.
P.K. BHASIN, J NOVEMBER 6, 2013 I.A. No.1025/2013 in CS(OS) 2818/1989 & I.A. No.14116/2010 in CS(OS) 2147/2010 Page 11 of 11