S M WAHI Vs. REETA WAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs are husband and wife. Plaintiff No.2 has since passed away and her legal representative, Plaintiff No.1, is now pursuing the suit as the sole Plaintiff.

(2.) In the plaint, as originally filed, the prayer was for a decree of declaration in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the sole Defendant (Reeta Wahi niece of Plaintiff No.1) that Plaintiff No.1 is the owner of property bearing No. 13, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi (the suit property). The other two substantive prayers were for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from leasing out portions of the property belonging to the Plaintiffs or from otherwise alienating the property or dispossessing the Plaintiffs from the suit property and for a decree seeking cancellation of sale deeds dated 16th May, 1997, 19th May, 1997 and 30th June, 1997.

(3.) The Plaintiffs subsequently amended the plaint and two other Defendants were added, namely, Sajit Bakshi (Defendant No.2) who, it is alleged, in connivance with Reeta Wahi (Defendant No.1) attempted to take forcible possession of the suit property. Punjab National Bank (Defendant No.3) was also added as a party because a company called Vaishali International Management and Resources Ltd. (VIMAR) of which the Plaintiff is a major shareholder had mortgaged the suit property with it. The title deeds of the suit property are said to be lying with Defendant No.3 and it is alleged that Defendant No.1 is trying to obtain the title deeds from Defendant No.3 so as to induct Defendant No.2 into the suit property.