CORPORATION BANK Vs. SUSHIL ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,59,466/- under Order 34 Code of Civil Procedure and for a decree of declaration to the effect that the defendants no. 5 and 6 have no authority to revoke the General Power of Attorney dated 7.12.87 executed by them authorising the plaintiff to realize the rent of premises no. ND-6, Pitampura, Vishakha Enclave, New Delhi taken on lease by defendant no. 7, Bank and appropriate the same against the loan amount till the liability of defendants no. 1 and 2 is liquidated. Apart from this , the plaintiff has also sought a decree of perpetual injunction for restraining defendants no. 5 and 6 from revoking the said GPA and also for a decree of mandatory injunction to direct defendant no. 7 to continue to pay the rent to the plaintiff till the liability of defendant no. 1 is liquidated.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is that on 29.3.84 the plaintiff Bank granted in favour of defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 a term loan against execution of documents of loan/security and on the guarantee of the defendants No. 3 and 4. Defendant no. 2 deposited the title deeds of property no. 1264, 1265 and 1265A, Fiaz Ganj, New Delhi while defendants no. 3 and 4 had already deposited the title deeds relating to property no. BL-106, Hari Nagar, New Delhi with an intention to create security thereon. The defendants no. 5 and 6 executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff to collect rent of premises No. ND-7, Vishakha Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi under the tenancy of defendant number 7.

(3.) The defendants no. 1 to 6 filed a joint Written Statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. They have alleged forgery done by the plaintiff in as much as that their signatures were obtained on blank loan documents which were later on filled up by the plaintiff. As regards the deposit of the title deeds of the properties, it is averred that the same were handed over to the Bank only to show their solvency and were never deposited with an intention to create mortgage. It is further averred that the loan amount was not disbursed and the statement of account is false. Apart from this they have also taken the plea that the Power of Attorney was not admissible being an unregistered document and moreover they had already revoked the same. The plaintiff denied the aforesaid allegations and reiterated the averments made by them in the plaint.