(1.) I.A. No. 7879/2008.
(2.) THIS common order will dispose of three applications, I.A. No. 2950/2008, being the plaintiff's application for ad interim injunction; the second application being I.A. No. 7878/2008, moved by the first three defendants, for vacation of existing interim order and the third application being I.A. No. 4045/2009, moved by the plaintiff for release of the amount i.e. sum of 1.74 crores deposited in the Court, with the accrued interest.
(3.) THE plaintiff approached the Court in March 2008, claiming specific relief and other consequential reliefs, including damages. It is contended that eventhough the defendants had agreed to convey the property by the end of July (according to the written agreements), they refused to do so and instead the plaintiff discovered that there was cloud to the title over the property, in as much as the Defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 9, i.e. the two daughters and wife of the predeceased son of late Sh. B.N. Sharma had set -up a rival claim. The plaintiff relies on various documents, including notices exchanged inter se between him and the defendants. The plaintiff has placed on the record the legal notice dated 24.07.2006; and the reply to the said notice dated 28.07.2006. The plaintiff also placed reliance on a complaint lodged with the competent Criminal Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, whereby it was alleged that the defendants were guilty of the offence of cheating and had induced him to part with valuable consideration of Rs. 30 lakhs. The plaintiff further relies upon the averment that the daughters' interest was concealed from him and that one of them, i.e. the first defendant, Ms. Manju Sharma had in fact filed a suit. The plaintiff further submits that the vendees, i.e. herself and Sh. Jagdish Chander Sharma (the first, second and the third defendants), as well as the other vendees (Defendant Nos. 4, 7 and 8) had in fact given no objection to him. It was contended that the cloud to the property arose on account of legal notice issued on behalf of the sisters and the daughter -in -law (Defendant No. 6) to the Sub -Registrar, requesting him not to register the property, on 23.06.2006. The plaintiff also relies upon the circumstance that the said defendant had filed a suit, impleading him as Defendant No. 8 before the Civil Court.