SURESH N.B Vs. EKRAMUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Evidently, there is a scramble for possession between the plaintiff and defendant. The property in question originally belonged to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, for valuable consideration, the defendant conveyed the same to the plaintiff as per Exts A1 and A2 sale deeds and thereafter the plaintiff is in absolute enjoyment of the property. The defendant contends that the documents were executed in favour of the plaintiff only as security for Rs. 40 lakhs paid to the defendant. It is also contended that he has filed a suit as O.S.326 of 2015 for setting aside the documents and the same is pending.

(2.) The plaintiff moved an Interlocutory Application, as I.A.No.1361 of 2015, for injunction against trespass. The application was dismissed by the trial court. The order was affirmed in appeal, in C.M.A. No.19 of 2015. Challenging the same the plaintiff approached this Court in O.P. No.1828 of 2017. This Court in its judgment dated 22.08.2017 observed thus:

(3.) As noticed by this Court in the judgment dated in O.P. No.1828 of 2017, admittedly there are registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs as per Exts A1 and A2. Admittedly an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs has been paid to the defendant. That there is a scramble for possession is evident. I feel that this is a fit case to appoint a Receiver to take over possession of the disputed property. In the facts and circumstances stated supra, I deem it proper to appoint the plaintiff as the Receiver. The plaintiff-respondent in the original petition is hereby appointed as receiver of the plaint schedule property and the building thereon. The court below is at liberty to pass further orders and also to give necessary directions to the Receiver, pursuant to this order.