GURMEET SINGH Vs. RAJIV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA.11425/97 is an application, filed by the plaintiffs for confirmation of the interim order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 Civil Procedure Code. This Court had passed the ex parte order of ad-interim injunction on 17/12/1997 and the IA.110/98, filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code comes up for vacation of the said order and both are being disposed of together.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs as set out in the plaint is that the plaintiff No. 1/Gurmeet Singh's family was well-off and was maintaining a Fiat Car and owned their house at G-93, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The plaintiff No. 1-Gurmeet Singh and defendant No.1-Rajiv Singh in spite of their vast difference in standards of living were good friends. The plaintiff No. 1-Gurmeet Singh's parents died in a road accident and the defendant No.1-Rajiv Singh won over the plaintiffs' confidence and accordingly started regularly keeping the money of the plaintiff No. 1 and in fact bought a car and a motor-bike out of the money of the plaintiff No.1 and though plaintiff No.1 had objected to such lavish purchases by defendant No. 1 from the funds of the plaintiff No.1 he was assured that the money so spent would be repaid by the 1 st defendant. Due to the depression of the plaintiff No.1, defendant No.1 was permitted to sit in the shop of the plaintiff No.1 and gradually started running and controlling the business of the plaintiff No.1. Cheque books were given to defendant No. 1 and all sale proceeds of the business were deposited by the defendant No.1 in his own account in Central Bank, Krishna Market, Kalkaji, New Delhi. A large sum of money of the plaintiff No.1 was transferred in this manner by the defendant No.1 in his own name. The plaintiff No.1 also executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Rajiv Singh, defendant No.1 authorising him to let out the disputed property and to collect the rent and the rent was collected from the tenant on behalf of plaintiff No.1 by defendant No.1. However, this rent was never given to plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 had in fact collected rent which had accumulated to Rs. 3.5 lacs but he was however only given a sum of Rs.1 lacs as the rent of the basement through a Cheque dated 18.5.1995. The defendant No.1 also took an additional security of Rs. 2 lacs from the tenant but this money was also never paid to plaintiff No.1 and thus by the General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff No.1 in favour of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 collected a sum of Rs. 3.5 lacs in addition to the security amount of Rs.2 lacs from the. tenant. That in furtherance of his mala fide intentions and ill designs, the defendant No.1 persuaded the plaintiffs to execute a sale deed in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit property for protecting the same from the sisters of the plaintiff No.1 and promised to re-execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs mentioned as the consideration in the sale deed which was duly registered on 19.4.1996 was in fact without any consideration and the said sum of Rs.2.5 lacs only represented the advance security and the rent collected by defendant No.1 from the tenant Y.M. Mahajan of M/s Mixture Exports in respect of the same property. Thereafter a suit was also filed by defendant No. 1 in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi where they had secured interim orders. The plaintiffs have submitted that the following modus operand! was adopted by defendant No.1 to defraud the plaintiffs:-

(3.) There were also some instances of violence alleged. The plaintiffs have averred in Para No. 27 of the plaint that the premises in question have been attached by the police under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently the following prayers were made in the suit:-