SUBROTO GHOSE Vs. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two applications of the plaintiff being I.A. 5156/94 and I.A. 4343/95. The main prayer of the plaintiff in these applications is regarding appointment of a Receiver with respect to property no. 5, Ring Road, New Delhi (Khasra No.312, Village: Kilokri, Delhi). In I.A. 4343/95, the plaintiff has also sought certain other reliefs. However, I have taken these applications into considerations only for purposes of prayer of the plaintiff for appointment of a Receiver with respect to the said property. Regarding other reliefs, if any, available to the plaintiff, he may take steps separately.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present applications are as follows. Bhakta Kumar Ghose was admittedly the owner of the suit property by virtue of a duly registered sale deed dated 6th December, 1991 executed in his favour by one Mahabir Prashad Sanghi. The said Bhakta Kumar Ghose (BKG for short) had constructed a building upon the said plot no.5, Ring Road, New Delhi comprising two independent flats on the ground floor, two independent flats on the second floor and a Barsati apartment on the second floor besides two garrages and four servants' quarters. BKG died on 14th December, 1984. The plaintiff is the nephew of BKG being son of his brother. BKG was a bachelor and, therefore, did not leave behind any heir from his own lineage. The case of the plaintiff is that BKG had executed a Will dated 9th June, 1962 which was duly registered in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar of Assurances, Alipur, Calcutta. By the said Will, BKG had bequeathed the property in suit in favour of the plaintiff who was also appointed as executor of the Will. The plaintiff further submits that as executor of the Will, he performed various functions including payment of Estate Duty regarding the estate of BKG. The plaintiff also obtained probate of the said Will vide order dated 12th April, 1988 passed by the Calcutta High Court.

(3.) Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff from Delhi, the defendants conspired to take illegal possession of the suit property. The plaintiff has, therefore, prayed that a Receiver be appointed to take possession of the suit property from the defendants. It is admitted in the plaint that in respect of two flats in the property in suit, BKG had inducted tenants. One P.K.Das gupta is a tenant in the front first floor flat of the property. In the front ground floor flat of the property, M.S.Bakshi had been inducted as a tenant. Against M.S.Bakshi, proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act had been instituted in the year 1986 by the present plainitiff in the court of the Rent Controller, Delhi for his eviction. Those proceedings are stated to be still pending as per averments contained in the plaint. M.S.Bakshi died in the year 1987 and his widow, defendant no.6 in the present suit and son, defendant no.7 in the present suit were substituted in those proceedings. The plaintiff has further stated that in November 1991, he filed a suit for injunction against defendants 6 and 7 in the Subordinate Court and the said suit is also pending.