AJIT NARAIN Vs. AARTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 5496/98 is an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for ad-interim injunction filed by the plaintiff and IA No. 417/99 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code on behalf of the defendants for vacation of the interim order dated 13th July 1998.

(2.) The plaintiff seeks by his suit a declaration that the documents i.e., General Power of Attorney and other documents in respect of property bearing No. 110, Jor Bagh New Delhi (first and second floor) would not come into operation till 31st December 1999 and only in the event the plaintiff does not return the due amount. A decree for permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendants from acting upon or using the General Power of Attorneys and any other related documents in respect of the property in question. The plaintiff has further prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants from alienating, disposing off or creating any third party right, title or interest in the property in question.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff, Shri Ajay Narain, that he is the owner of the property bearing No. 110, Jor Bagh, New Delhi. In 1986 he had rented the second floor of the property to defendant No. 1, Smt. Aarti Singh to begin with and thereafter the first floor of the property in 1990 was rented to defendant No. 1. In 1992 defendant No. 1 married defendant No. 2, Shri Kanwar Raj Singh. Since the plaintiff had very good relations with the defendants therefore all the ceremonies of the defendants' marriage were performed in the ground floor of the disputed property, where the plaintiff and his family resides. The plaintiff further alleged that due to cordial relations between he parties monetary transactions had taken place and he has referred to a loan of Rs. 1,50,000.00 given by the plaintiff to the defendants without any documentation. The plaintiff's further case is that in the year 1996 for starting a new business he needed a loan of about Rs. 50-60 lacs and due to the cordinal relations between the parties the defendants readily agreed to give a loan to the plaintiff and sought some sort of security. Accordingly at first the plaintiff had offered documents of his commercial property at Kasturba Gandhi Marg which was no acceptable to the defendants and consequently the defendants sought the documents of second floor of the property in question as a security. The plaintiff's case is that this was desired by the defendants to arrive at some sort of comfort level for the loan extended to the plaintiff. Accordingly the defendants got the documents such a 2 General Power of Attorneys, Agreement to Sell and other related documents etc. prepared and asked the plaintiff to sign them. The defendants had declined to accept an equitable mortgage as the property already stood mortgaged in favour of a bank. It is further stated that due to tremendous amount of faith and trust between the parties, the plaintiff did not bother to read the text of the documents and blindly signed the same and gave them to the defendants on 6th December, 1996. After the documents were handed over to defendant No. 1, he gave three cheques totalling Rs. 8 lacs dated 9th December, 1996 and thereafter defendant No. 2 also gave a bank draft of Rs. 5 lacs on 11th December, 1996 thereby giving a total sum of Rs. 13 lacs to the plaintiff. The defendants thereafter persuaded the plaintiff to get the documents registered with the Sub Registrar and the plaintiff in good faith got these documents registered with the Sub Registrar on 12th December, 1996.