N S HOON Vs. NIMMI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in this case seeks a decree of possession against the defendants in respect of the property, being A-9, Green Park, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as "the suit property"), or in the alternative, decree for damages and compensation, quantified at '12.2 crores, with 18% interest from the date of filing of suit, till realization.

(2.) ACCORDING to the suit averments, the plaintiff was in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the property from 09.05.1984 to 28.03.2001. He submits that on 28.02.2000, an attempt was made by the first defendant, her husband ? the second Defendant, the third defendant (hereafter referred to as "Sh. S.K. Kochar") and the fourth defendant, to forcibly oust him. The suit property was sealed under orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Hauz Khas till 28.03.2001. It is alleged that the defendants have colluded and connived and that the fifth and sixth defendants are impleaded as proper parties. The plaintiff alleges that the first four defendants obtained, on 23.02.2001, order from the SDM, directing possession of the property to be given to the first defendant. It is alleged that the fraud was played by concealing plaintiff's possession from 09.05.1984, as well as execution of a registered Power of Attorney, Receipt etc. in 1979 by the first defendant in favor of the fifth defendant, and further concealing the execution of lease in 1980 by the fifth defendant, in favor of the sixth defendant.

(3.) IT is urged that the first defendant is the erstwhile owner of the suit property; and the third defendant had alleged about an agreement to sell dated 11.01.1978 entered into with her by him, through her attorney, i.e. Dr. Achhar Singh for total consideration of '3,00,000/-, for which he had allegedly paid '1,00,000/- as Earnest Money. S.K. Kochar had filed CS (OS) 220/1981 (hereafter referred to as, "the 1981 suit") before this Court, for specific performance of the alleged agreement dated 11.01.1978 against the first defendant and others. That suit had also impleaded the said Dr. Achhar Singh. IT is submitted that the said first defendant and Dr. Achhar Singh denied the agreement to sell. The plaintiff urges that the first three defendant then colluded with the fourth defendant to deprive him (the plaintiff), of his lawful possession in respect of the suit property.