GOPICHAND GOPAL UTEKAR Vs. VASANT VASUDEO SAWANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing with consent of parties.

(2.) The Appellant/Defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court for Greater Bombay in Short Cause Suit No. 1069 of 2016. Respondents/Plaintiffs have filed the said Suit against the Appellant/Defendant for declaration, possession and injunction in respect of Room No.LG-185/1/2, Indira Nagar, Sunder Baug, Kamani, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400 070. In the suit it is contended that in the year 2004, Plaintiff No. 2 was in need of financial help, therefore, he through his sister approached the Defendant. Defendant agreed to give loan of Rs.1,00,000.00 to Plaintiff No. 2 on 4 per cent interest per month. Loan amount was accepted by Plaintiff No. 2 in two installments, after deducting the monthly interest from the said amount. Plaintiff No. 2 was regularly paying the installment of Rs.4,000.00 with interest to Defendant and had repaid substantial loan amount. However, in 2005, due to unavoidable circumstances, she was unable to pay installments to the Defendant.

(3.) On 11/6/2005, Defendant and his family members forced Plaintiff No. 2 to place original documents of some immovable property with them. At the request of Plaintiff No. 2, Plaintiff No. 1 delivered the original documents of the suit premises to the Defendant. On 13/6/2005, Plaintiffs were forced by the Defendant to sign on typed papers, on the pretext that the same are required for loan purpose. On 13/12/2003, Defendant and his brother obtained signatures of the Plaintiffs on some documents under coercion. It was assured that documents will not be misused and would be returned after paying the balance amount. However, Defendant by misusing the documents, illegally and forcibly took possession of the suit premises, when Plaintiff No. 1 was out of the premises. Plaintiffs, therefore, claimed that they never executed agreement dtd. 13/6/2005 or agreement for sale or power of attorney and affidavit dtd. 13/12/2005 in favour of Defendant and that they have not received any consideration amount for the suit premises.