NARESH K RAJWANI Vs. RUFINA M PINTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard advocates for the appellant and respondent No. 1. Appellant is the original defendant No. l. Respondent no. l is the original plaintiff. Respondent no. 2 is the original defendant No. A suit vide Suit No. 5765 of 1997 was filed by the plaintiff against the appellant and respondent no. 2 claiming therein that the General Power of Attorney dated 22-07-1994 in the name of the plaintiff appointing Defendant No. 2 and a letter dated 12-08-1994 purporting to create tenancy in respect of the suit premises are fake, false and fraudulent documents and the defendants be restrained from acting upon those' documents Exhibit C and D, and defendant No. 1 be declared as trespasser and ordered to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. Certain other reliefs were also claimed in addition.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that she was the owner of Flat No. 6 on the Second floor of the building calling as SUNBEAM. She was in fact the owner of the entire building. So far as flat No. 6 was concerned, smt. Oliva Fernandes was the tenant. Oliva fernandes was living in the suit premises with sohnu Vaz. Oliva died on 30-03-1989. Sohnu Vaz died on 27-04-1991. But the plaintiff has filed a suit against Oliva before the Small Causes Court for ejectment vide r. A. E. Suit No. 838/2622 of 1985. After oliva's death two of her daughters who were settled in Australia were joined. There was an order of injunction against both the daughters restraining them from parting with possession of the suit premises. Therefore, the premises were locked after the death of oliva and Sohnu. The plaintiff ultimately got a decree from the Small Causes Court in her suit No. 838/2622 of 1985 referred to above. However, it is the case of the plaintiff that both the defendants hatched conspiracy and brought into existence two documents i. e the power of attorney and the letter referred to above which were totally bogus and fraudulent. Those documents were never signed by the plaintiff and, therefore, she filed the suit for declaration and possession etc. According to the plaintiff, further defendant no. 1 instituted a suit in the City Civil Court being S. C. Suit No. 4712 of 1997 in plaintiffs name on the said power of attorney. In the notice of Motion, commissioner came to be appointed and, when the commissioner went to the plaintiff at her residence, she came to know about this fraudulent dealing of the defendants and conspiracy and, in that background of the matter she filed the suit.

(3.) The appellant, who is most contested party in the matter and who has alone preferred this appeal, strongly resisted the claim of the plaintiff. According to him, in 1994 he was in need of a premises and one estate broker Surekh Sukhani introduced him to the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not directly deal with him but did so through defendant no. 2. The defendant No. 2 did not file any written statement. Then Issue came to be framed by the trial Court and a decree carne to be passed as stated above on the basis of conclusions arrived at by the trial Court on issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 11. All those findings on Issues and decree have been challenged in the present appeal.