BABITA PAL Vs. JAGDISH BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice. With the consent of parties, we have heard learned counsels and proceed to dispose of the present appeal.

(3.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal to assail the order dated 07.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of the following applications: (i) I.A. No. 5347/2012 (under Order VI Rule XVII CPC filed by the plaintiff/respondent); (ii) I.A. No. 17345/2011 (filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2/appellants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint), and; (iii) I.A. No. 18753/2011 (filed by the defendants/appellants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the interim order dated 12.08.2011). The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts through his attorney. The respondent is a senior citizen residing in New York for the last several decades where he is a practicing doctor. The case of the respondent was that the appellant had been acquainted with him for over a decade. The appellant No. 2/defendant No.1 in the suit represented to him that if the respondent were to send money to the appellant from the USA, the appellant No. 2 would buy properties on his behalf. Since there was appreciation in the property rates in India, particularly in the NCR, the respondent sent his own funds and also contributions made by his family members to the appellant No. 2. These funds were sent for the purpose of defendant No. 2 doing business in India as well as purchasing properties on behalf of the respondent, and on behalf of his family members. Appellant No. 2 purchased certain properties in the name of the respondent and his family members and also purchased some properties either in his own name; in the name of his family members. Subsequently, appellant No.2 turned dishonest and started purchasing properties in his own name; in the name of his own family members, and; in the name of the firms owned by him and his family members. He also took loans in the names of the firms/companies against these properties without obtaining prior concurrence of the respondent. When confronted, respondent No. 2 acknowledged having received large sums of money from the respondent and his family members and gave his admission in writing on 18.3.2011. He also executed a General Power of Attorney on 29.06.2011 in favour of the respondent in respect of eight of the properties purchased by him in his own name, or in the names of his family members/firms/companies. The case of the respondent was that in August, 2011, he came to know that despite the execution of the Power of Attorneys as aforesaid, the appellant No. 2 was planning to sell and dispose of the said properties in a hurry. Consequently, the respondent filed the aforesaid suit wherein he sought a declaration that he was the owner of the properties bought by appellant No. 2 out of the funds sent by him and his family members in trust. He also sought a mandatory injunction directing the appellants to handover the original title deeds of the properties in question with peaceful vacant possession of the properties to the respondent and his family members. A permanent injunction was also sought against the appellants from creating any third party interest in the suit properties. Lastly, the respondent sought rendition of accounts from the appellants with the direction that they shall pay all the outstanding loans which they have taken against the said properties bought from out of the funds sent by the respondent and his family members.