SUSHILA YADAV Vs. SATISH CHANDRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This IA is filed by the original plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed this suit No. 3189/88 against 14 defendants seeking recovery of Rs. 2,91,998.52 from them. Plaintiff and defendants are members of Joint Hindu family and they are the descendants of one Choudhary Surat Singh. They are owning properties including property Nos. 727 to 737, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi and a partition suit No. 562/75 was filed in this Court and a preliminary decree for partition of the joint family properties and determination of the shares of the various members of the joint Hindu family has been passed in the said partition suit No. 562/75 to which the present plaintiff as well as all the defendants are also parties.

(2.) It is a case of plaintiff that joint family property bearing Nos. 727 to 737, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi was mortgaged by the ancestor of plaintiff and defendant by mortgage deed dated 19-6-62 in favour of Life Insurance Corpn. of India. Life Insurance Corpn. of India had brought suit No. 277/71 to recover the mortgage debt and the said suit was decreed in favour of Life Insurance Corpn of India. The decree passed by the Single Judge was challenged by the LIC before the Division Bench of this Court as their whole claim for the mortgage amount was not at lowed. That appeal was allowed and the whole claim was allowed. Therefore present plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 preferred Special Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India beaning No. 11172/86. In the said special leave petition as the defendants 4 to 14 were not ready to join the plaintiff, they were merited respondents. It is further claim of the plaintiff that at the time of the said admission of the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court had directed to deposit Rs. 2,24,577.14 towards the mortgage debt and the preliminary decree passed in favour of Life Insurance Corpn. of India. Accordingly, the plaintiff alone has deposited the said amount in the Supreme Court towards the satisfaction of the sari mortgage deed, but unfortunately the Specie Leave Petition has been dismissed and decree in favour of Life Insurance Corporation has thus become final. Plaintiff has filed this suit to get a contribution in proportion of the shares of defendants 1 to 14, in the said mortgage amount filed by her as per the decree passed in favour of Life Insurance Corporation. By this interim application plaintiff wants ad interim injunction to restrain the defendant from transferring or alienating in whatsoever manner their shares in the said property Ito 727 to 737. According to her unless the defendants make payment of the amount paid by he to the mortgagee, the defendants are not entitled to deal with their property which was the subject matter of the mortgage and if they are not restrained by ad interim injunction there she in likely to suffer irreparable loss. learned predecessor was pleased to issue show cause notice to the defendants to she cause as to why the ad interim injunction a; prayed for should not be granted.

(3.) In pursuance of the said show cause notice defendants 1, 2 and 3 put in there appearance and they filed their reply supporting the claim of the plaintiff.