CHET RAM GUPTA Vs. MOTIAN DEVI LAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall dispose of two separate applications filed by different parties in these two suits for appointment of a Receiver in respect of one property in Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi(to be referred as 'the suit property' hereinafter).

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the two applications under Order XL C.P.C. are that the suit property was purchased by Smt. Motian Devi, who is the plaintiff in suit no.2147 of 2010(reference to which shall hereinafter be made as 'Motian Devi's suit) and defendant no.1 in suit no. 2818 of 1989 which was filed by one Chet Ram Gupta who died during he pendency of his suit(reference to which suit shall hereinafter be made as 'Chet Ram's suit) from M/s DLF Ltd. in the year 1973. She shifted to England and settled there but committed a blunder by leaving this country without selling her property in the prime locality of New Delhi and making it available for the land grabbers to grab it illegally in her absence from the country.

(3.) In October, 2010 Motian Devi filed a suit for recovery of the suit property from the legal heirs of Chet Ram Gupta and for many other reliefs on the allegations that her son-in-law visited her in London in February,2010 and informed her that he had visited the suit property in January,2010 and had found that the suit property had been grabbed by Chet Ram Gupta, who is being represented in her suit by her legal heirs since he had died before the filing of the suit by her, Ravi Prakash Gupta, who is also being represented in her suit by his legal heirs as he had also died before the filing of the suit by her, one V.P.Gupta, defendant no.2 and Dr.G.S.Gupta, defendant no.4(who also died in Novembe,2010) by forging certain documents purporting to have been executed by her. It was further pleaded by Motian Devi that her son-in-law had also informed her that Chet Ram had illegally taken over the possession of the suit property and he had also filed a collusive suit for specific performance of some agreement to sell(being suit no.2818 of 1989) impleading her as defendant no.1 on the allegations that she had agreed to sell to him the suit property in the year 1986 through one S.P.Gupta, who is defendant no.3 in her suit. Then she engaged an advocate and came to know that the above-named Dr.G.S.Gupta(now dead) and late Ravi Prakash Gupta were claiming in Chet Ram's suit that Motian Devi had in fact gifted the suit property to them in the year 1987. Motian Devi also claimed that on the basis of a forged power of attorney she was being represented in Chet Ram's suit by one V.P. Gupta, defendant no.2 in her suit. Alleging that she had neither agreed to sell the suit property to Chet Ram Gupta nor had she executed any gift deed in favour of Dr.G.S. Gupta and Ravi Prakash Gupta, as was being claimed by them, she prayed for passing of a decree of cancellation of all the documents which were being relied upon by late Chet Ram Gupta in support of his prayer in his suit for specific performance of agreement to sell purporting to have been executed by her and also for cancellation of the documents being relied upon by Dr. G.S. Gupta and Ravi Prakash Gupta in support of their claim that she had gifted the suit property to them in the year 1987. Since it was also being claimed by Motian Devi as well as S.P.Gupta, Dr.R.S.Gupta and V.P.Gupta('Gupta Brothers') that late Chet Ram had illegally taken over the possession of the suit property in the year 1989 a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property was also claimed by Motian Devi in her suit against the legal heirs of late Chet Ram Gupta. She claimed that prior to February,2010 she was not aware about the collusive Chet Ram's suit and that she was unauthorisedly being represented in that suit by V.P.Gupta.