RAJIV SURI Vs. RAJESH GOESL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, in this suit, seeks a declaration of invalidity of, and cancellation of a Deed of Power of attorney and Will, both dated 30 -5 -2001.

(2.) THE suit averments are that the plaintiff and his wife, Indu Puri, were owners of property in the ring shop number 1, Stall block, Community Centre, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi, (hereafter called "suit property"), measuring 36 square meters along with kitchen and courtyard which were sold and handed over to them. The plaintiff alleges that he was acquainted with defendants from whom he had secured a loan of Rs. 2,00,000 in cash which had been repaid. It is alleged that when the loan was obtained, the defendants had required the plaintiff to furnish security. This allegedly was on the representation that such documents constituted "lien" for the loan. As the plaintiff knew the defendants well, he did not have any hesitation in executing the documents, for the purpose of security. Therefore a General Power of Attorney dated 30 -5 -2001 and a Will of the same date was executed along with some blank papers.

(3.) IN view of these developments, the plaintiff alleges that the documents such as General Power of Attorney; Will etc, which were given earlier but not returned by the defendants, despite the amount of Rs. 200,000/ - having been returned by the plaintiff to them, cannot be retained by them. It is contended in the suit by the plaintiff that the two documents along with other blank papers, in the possession of the defendants, cannot be retained by them any longer because the purpose for which they were executed, i.e. securing a loan on 30 -52001, no longer subsists. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have been constantly threatening him in the recent past i.e. in January 2007, that they would create third -party interest in the property and also interfere with possession. The plaintiff in these circumstances apprehends that the defendants actions would interfere with the sale transaction lawfully entered into with his vendee. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action to file the suit arose on various dates in the recent past as and when the defendants threatened him about their intention to misuse the documents in their possession.