MATTER OF Vs. ANUPAMA BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against an order dated 12.3.2109, passed by the learned Single Judge allowing an application filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 and respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, registered as I.A. No.23589/2015. By the impugned order, the suit for declaration, cancellation, possession, rendition of accounts and permanent and mandatory injunctions filed by the respondents in respect of agricultural land, measuring 21 Bighas, 16 Biswas comprising of Khasra No.50/23 Min (0-7), 21 (4-16), 22 (3-16), 58/3 (0-9), 1 (4-12), 2 (5-12), 10 (2-0), 26 (0-04) situated in the revenue estate of Village Bakoli, Tehsil Alipur, District North, known as Suraj Vatika, G.T. Road, Delhi (in short, 'suit property') has been decreed in their favour under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, declaring respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 (HUF) as the owner and further declaring the Sale Deed dated 24.7.2013, executed by Rakesh Bansal (husband of the appellant and son of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1) in favour of his wife, the appellant/defendant No.2, as null and void. A decree of permanent injunction has been granted against the appellant and her husband restraining them from alienating, letting out or using the suit property for any commercial or other purpose. A decree of possession has also been granted directing the appellant and her husband to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the respondents within four weeks. Lastly, the appellant and her husband have been directed to credit 1/3rd of the amount earned by them from the suit property, to the tune of Rs.50,73,666.67, in the account of the respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks. Additionally, the amount of rent that was deposited by the appellant and her husband in Court in terms of an order dated 30.5.2014, has also been directed to be released in favour of the respondents alongwith the interest accrued thereon.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 (father-in-law of the appellant) and the respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2, a HUF of which respondent No.1 is the "Karta", had filed CS(OS) No.1789/2014 on the Original Side of this Court against Rakesh Bansal (appellant's husband and son of the respondent No.1), arrayed as defendant No.1, the appellant (Rakesh Bansal's wife and daughter-in-law of the respondent No.1) arrayed as defendant No.2 and M/s R.G. Associates, the tenant in the suit premises, arrayed as defendant No.3 in the suit. We may note here that the appellant has not impleaded her husband (defendant No.1) and the tenant (defendant No.3) as respondents in the present appeal.

(3.) The averments made by the respondents in the plaint are that the respondent No.2(HUF), whose Karta is the respondent No.1, is the owner of the suit property. On 19.3.1998, respondent No.1 executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of his son (defendant No.1) to enable him to carry out various acts and deeds on his behalf. By virtue of the said GPA, defendant No.1 started handling the bank accounts of the respondents.