S M WAHI Vs. REETA WAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(hereinafter referred to as the `CPC'), the plaintiffs have prayed that the defendants be restrained from leasing out or creating third party interest and rights and also in respect of the suit property and also be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property situated at 13, Kautilya Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to the as the `suit property').

(2.) The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit property is situated at 13, Kautilya Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, New Delhi. The defendant No.1, Ms. Reeta Wahi is the niece of the plaintiff No.1, S.M. Wahi and the entire case is based on the plea of the plaintiff No.1 that the defendant No.1 was a nominee of the plaintiff No.1 and the sale deeds were got executed in favour of the defendant No.1 only as a nominee and the properties were held by the defendant as a nominee. The consideration for the purchase of the suit property was said to be made out from the accounts of the company owned and controlled by the plaintiffs and it is not disputed that the entire consideration and its payment towards the acquisition of the suit property has been made by the plaintiffs. The plaint seeks adjudication of plaintiffs' ownership and other ancillary reliefs against the defendants such as injunction against dispossession and restraint against the Punjab National Bank, defendant No.3 for allowing the redemption of property by defendant No.1 and restoration of part possession from defendant No.1 and cancellation of sale deeds dated 16th May, 1997, 19th May, 1997 and 30th June, 1997. The defendant No.1 had taken advantage of the sale deeds in her name and entered into a Collaboration Agreement with defendant No.2, S. Bakshi who in turn sought to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit premises. An ad-interim order dated 16th July, 2004 was passed by this Court and it is the confirmation or the vacation of the said ex parte interim order sought by the 1st and 2nd defendant which is the issue involved in this case.

(3.) The facts of the case which according to the plaintiffs have not been disputed by the defendants in their written statements are as under: