AJAY NARAIN Vs. AARTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26th July, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge of this court vacating the ex-parte ad-interim injunction dated 13th July, 1998 passed against respondents (defendants) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) whereby they were restrained from transferring, alienating or parting with the possession of the first floor and the second floor of 110 JorBagh, New Delhi (for short suit the premises) thus allowing respondents' application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the code (IA No. 417/99). Since the point involved in the appeal is very short and record has already been called, by this order we propose to dispose of the appeal itself.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are: The appellant filed the suit against respondents for a decree of declaration that General Power of Attorneys (for short GPA) dated 6.12.1996, 7.10.1997 and 30.3.1998 in favour of Aarti Singh Respondent No. 1; GPA dated 6.12.1996, and four special power of attorneys all dated 30.3.1997 in favour Kanwar Raj Respondent No. 2; GPA dated 7.10.97 in favour of Respondents 2 and 3; agreements to sell dated 6.12.1996,7.10.1997 and 30.3.1998 in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and other related documents (hereinafter the sale documents) executed by him, in favour of respondents, in respect of the suit premises, would not come into operation till 31.12.1999 and for declaration that the blank signed papers given by him to the respondents be treated as null and void ab-initio and for a decree of injunction against the respondents not to act upon or use the said documents.

(3.) The appellant alleged in the suit that he is the owner of the property No. 110 Jor Bagh, New Delhi and has been residing on its ground floor. In 1986 Respondent No. 1 who was then working as an air hostess with the British Airways, took on rent second floor (barsati floor) of the said premises, she, after some time, stared doing business and with the passage of time, family of appellant came closer to Respondent No. 1; first floor was also rented out to her. Respondent No. 1 got married to Respondent No. 2 in December 1991. Respondent No. 3 is the sister of Respondent No. 1. It was alleged that in the latter half of 1996 the appellant started business of manufacture and export of jewellry and garments and required investment to the tune of Rs.50-6- lakhs. Respondents 1 and 2 readily offered to provide loan to the appellant with interest at the rate of 16% per annum but they insisted upon some kind of security since the amount involved was very large, and came up with the suggestion that the appellant should give them the suit premises as security for repayment of the loan. The appellant informed the Respondents that the suit property was encumbered with the bank, as a collateral security, at the time he had obtained loan of packing credit limit from them. Respondents 1 and 2 then stated that it would not make any difference to them because once the appellant clears the loan amount the sale documents to be executed by him, in their favour would be returned back to him. As per this understanding between December 1996 and 30th March, 1998 the appellant received a total surt of Rs.60 lacs from, Respondents 1 and 2 on different dates, and executed said sale documents showing sale of the suit premises in their favour. On 24th April, 1998 the some NDMC official visited the premises from whom the appellant came to know that the Respondents 1 and 2 had submitted plans for reconstruction of the suit premises; thereafter on 30th April, 1998 the appellant accompanied with one Manmohan Kapoor and Vikram Seth, contacted Respondents I and 2 and returned to them amount of Rs.45 lacs (Rupees Forty Five Lacs only) in cash. It was further claimed Respondents 1 and 2 handed over to the appellant, two letters one signed by Respondent 1 and the other by Respondent No. 2 when this amount was returned acknowledging that the appellant had in fact taken a loan of Rs.60 lacs from them with interest @ 16% per annum; that at their request, the appellant had executed sale documents in respect of the suit premises and also some other blank papers clarifying that the said documents were got executed because the property was already mortgaged with the bank, and assuring that in the event of the appellant paying the balance of the loan amount of the sale documents would be returned to him and further asserting that in case the appellant fails to pay the entire money before 31.12.99, they would have the right to sell the property or part thereof to recover the balance dues and also confirming and acknowledging receipt of Rs.45 lacs in cash from the appellant (hereinafter referred to as disputed letters). On 13th July, 1998 an ex-pane ad-interim injunction was granted in favour of the appellant against the Respondents restraining them from transferring, alienating or parting with the possession of the suit premises.