SURESH CHAND JAIN Vs. SIRI CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating, parting with or disposing off or collecting rent or in any way interfering with the property bearing Nos. 2739 to 2745, Sushila Mohan Marg, Naya Bazar, Delhi. When the matter came up for hearing an ex parte order was passed on 14.6.2000. Written statement on behalf of defendants has since been filed. Mr. Dinesh Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants has pressed that the defendant No. 1 is of advanced age and that the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 be disposed off immediately. Accordingly the matter was heard at considerable length.

(2.) The contention on behalf of defendants is that the property in suit is the sole property of defendant No. 1, who is the father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 2. The plaintiff has shifted to Delhi whereas defendant No. 1 and his other son continue to reside and transact business in Muzaffarnagar, U.P. In order to substantiate the averment that the property belongs exclusively and solely to defendant No. 1, he has filed photocopies of sale deeds which are undoubtedly in the name of defendant No. 1 only. He has also filed the Assessment Orders and Returns of Wealth Tax and Income Tax which show that for over two decades the property has been disclosed as the exclusive property of defendant No. 1. Documents and Receipts pertaining to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has also been filed to prove the contention that the property stands in the name of defendant No. 1. It has further been contended by Mr. Dinesh Garg, learned Counsel for the defendants that the Rent Agreements are also in the name of defendant No. 1, in whose name rent receipts have been executed by the plaintiff himself. It has further been disclosed that even documents executed by the plaintiff state that the property belongs to defendant No. 1, and are also to the effect that rent for a portion of the premises has been paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1. Learned Counsel for the defendants has also stressed on the inconsistency in the pleadings contained in the plaint inasmuch as in para five the plaintiff has claimed title through an irrevocable General Power of Attorney executed by defendant No. 1; in para six he has claimed ownership by adverse possession and in para seven he has claimed that the properties are joint family properties of which partition has not yet taken place. Learned Counsel for the defendants further contends that not even a semblance of a prima facie case has been made out. Alongwith the plaint the plaintiff had filed the said irrevocable General Power of Attorney. It is contended that the signatures of defendant No. 1 were obtained on this document by misrepresentation and, therefore, it would be inquitable to grant any relief based thereon.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied heavily on the General Power of Attorney, the original of which was seen and thereafter returned to the plaintiff. He has emphasised the sentence in Clause 9 of the Entry that defendant No. 1 would get rent for the property during his life time as maintenance from the Attorney. He has further submitted that the original title deeds are in his possession and not in the possession of the defendants and this fact alone shows that the plaintiff has exclusive or predominant rights to the property in the suit. In reply to the argument put forward by learned Counsel for the defendants that even in the Income Tax Returns filed by the plaintiff the income from house property is shown as Nil, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has explained that this is for the reason that rentals as per the General Power of Attorney were to be made over to his father, defendant No. 1, as maintenance.