SANJAY VERMA Vs. SADHANA AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed the present suit to seek recovery of the amount of Rs. 23,70,000/ - from the two defendants jointly and severally, along with interest from the date of institution of the suit till realization @ 5% per month in terms of the agreement between the parties. The plaintiff also seeks a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from creating any third party interest in the share of 7% in land (with built in structure) bearing Khasra No.657 situated at village Ghookna, Pragana Loni, Tehsil & District Ghaziabad (U.P.) and to seek a restraint against alienation of the said property in any manner.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the husband of defendant No. 1 -Smt. Sadhana Agrawal, i.e. Shri Alok Agrawal was known to one Shri Mukesh Chauhan, son of late Shri C.K.Chauhan resident of House No. 296, Nilgiri Apartment, Alak Nanda, New Delhi. The said Shri Mukesh Chauhan was, in turn, known to the plaintiff through his cousin brother, namely, Shri Pawan Verma son of Shri B.S.Verma. In the month of November, 2009, Shri Alok Agrawal, husband of defendant No. 1 was arrested by Ghaziabad police for non -payment of trade tax dues and was sent to Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1 and Shri Alok Agrawal) approached Shri Mukesh Chauhan and Shri Pawan Verma for financial assistance of Rs. 15 lacs, immediately, to deposit the same with the Trade Tax Authorities to seek the release of Shri Alok Agrawal from jail. Shri Mukesh Chauhan and Shri Pawan Verma, in turn, approached the plaintiff along with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for advancing the loan of Rs. 15 lacs for a period of three months. On the pleading of defendant No. 1 that Shri Alok Agrawal was a diabetic and a blood pressure patient and that he could die of stress and tension in jail, and that her daughter was of marriageable age ­ whose engagement could break if Shri Alok Agrawal was not released from jail, the plaintiff, on the request of Shri Mukesh Chauhan and Shri Pawan Verma agreed to help defendant No. 1 in her hour of crisis. With a view to secure the financial assistance expected from the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 informed that she was the owner of 7% share in the land falling in Khata No. 670 in Khasra No. 657 village Ghookna, Pargana Loni, Distt. & Tehsil Ghaziabad, U.P., which she was ready to keep as a collateral security with the plaintiff. A copy of the family settlement filed before the Civil Court in Ghaziabad in Suit No. 947/2004 titled Atul Vs. Alok was provided by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff in this regard. Defendant No. 1 agreed to execute the relevant documents to clear the timely repayment of the loan. She executed post dated cheques for the principal amount and the interest amount, loan agreement, GPA, Affidavit, Will, Receipt and promissory note, in respect of her own transaction. She also granted authority to the plaintiff to take possession of her 7% share in the aforesaid property, in case of default in the repayment of the loan amount. The plaintiff states that he was also taken to a godown, which defendant Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to have been constructed in the 7% share of the land aforesaid - in terms of the family settlement. Defendant No. 2 also affirmed the ownership of the godown in favour of defendant No. 1. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs. 15 lacs to defendant No. 1 on 30.11.2009 at 20, National Park, Lajpat Nagar ­ IV, New Delhi. The plaintiff claims that though the plaintiff was desirous of advancing a cheque for the said amount, the defendant insisted on taking cash payment on the plea that the said amount had to be deposited on the same day with the Trade Tax Department, Ghaziabad. Accordingly, the loan was advanced in cash by the plaintiff to the defendants. Defendant No. 2 stood a guarantor for repayment of the loan taken by defendant No. 1. They also assured that he would issue post -dated cheques of the principal amount so that, in the eventuality of defendant No. 1 not being able to clear the loan amount along with interest, he would clear the same. .

(3.) AFTER taking the loan amount, defendants informed the plaintiff the same evening that the money had been deposited with the Trade Tax Department.