MUKESH BHARGAVA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA 152/2007 (u/O.7 R.11 CPC) The plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction. The subject matter of the suit is the immovable property being the first floor of property No.B-97, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). The plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are owners of the suit property and that the defendants, more particularly defendant no.1 bank, be restrained from selling, alienating, encumbering or creating any third party interest in the suit property.

(2.) The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the suit property from Mrs.Anjana Luthra, defendant no.2, vide a registered sale deed and to have been put in possession in pursuance thereto. The sale deed, possession letter and receipt were all executed on 28.1.2005. The suit has been instituted through a power of attorney holder. The plaintiffs claim to have paid a sum of Rs.7.00 lacs to defendant no.2 while purchasing the property.

(3.) The cause of action for filing the suit is stated to have arisen when the plaintiffs received a notice for settling a sale proclamation under Rule 53 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the I.T. Act). These notices were served by pasting at the address, though they were sent to defendants no.9 and 10. The plaintiffs claim to have done whatever was required for verification of title before purchasing the property and the plaintiffs were being cheated and a fraud was committed by the defendants collectively against the plaintiffs. It is alleged that a collusive decree was obtained ex parte. Defendants no. 9 and 10, who are the judgment debtors, did not contest the suit and defendant no.1, the bank, is stated to have done nothing to protect the mortgage property.