Appointment of a receiver based on the plaintiff's prima facie case and possession of the property.

( 1 ) THE defendant has filed this appeal against the order passed on 28. 11. 2000 by learned Single judge disposing of two applications (IAs. No. 10254/98 and 874/99) filed by the plaintiff respondent. By the impugned order the plaintiff/respondent has been appointed as a receiver of the suit property and has been permitted to transact her business from the premises. Thus I. A. 874/99 filed under Order XLI rule 1 stood allowed and I. A. 10254/98 filed under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. was dismissed as infructuous.

( 2 ) ON 10. 11. 1998 suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/appellant seeking decree for declaration that she was the owner of the shop having bought the same from the defendant on the basis of documents executed on 9. 7. 1997 for valuable consideration and that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the shop or the goods lying therein. Decree for permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and a decree for mandatory injunction directing the station House Officer, Police Station, Janak Puri to remove locks of defendant No. 1, which he was alleged to have put on the shutter of the suit property.

( 3 ) THE aforementioned reliefs the plaintiff has claimed alleging that the suit premises, which is a. shop measuring 10 4-1/2" x 12 was owned by lakhan Lal Chaurasia, the father of the defendant on the basis of allotment made by Delhi development Authority. A portion of the shop measuring 5 x 6 had been let out to the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,300. 00 wherein the plaintiff had been carrying on the business of jewel lery under the name and style of Durga jewellery House. Lakhan Lal Cnaurasi a transferred his rights, title and interest to his son (defendant/appellant) on the basis of documents dated 21. 12. 1995 for a consideration of rs. 40, 000. 00 Thereafter, the defendant started retail business of kitchen-ware and steel utensils from make shift counter on the left-side of the shop and also using the rear portion of the shop for storing his goods after the shop hours. The plaintiff continued to run her Jewellery counter from the portion, which had been let out to her, even after the shoo had been transferred to the defendant.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff further alleged In her plaint that defendant in the year 1996 expressed his desire to enter into a partnership with the plaintiff and Jointly run the jewellery business. Partnership agreement was entered into on 15. 2. 1996 but the partnership was never acted upon. The defendant suffered huge losses An wagering and betting and expressed His desire to sell the shop to the plaintiff since he was in dire need of money. Accordingly, the entire shop was sold to the plaintiff for a condifrtsyion of rs. 1,25,000. 00. The stock of kitchen-ware and steel utensils lying in the shop were sold by the defendant to the plaintiff separately for a consideration of Rs. 25,000. 00. In order to give effect to these transactions, an agreement to sell dated 9. 7. 1797 was executed though in the receipt, which was prepared at the time of entering into sale, consideration of Rs. 1,25,000. 00- was said to have been made on the basis of cheques bearing no. 357872 and 357873 dated 9. 7. 1997 for rs. 75,000. 00 and Rs. 50,000. 00 respectively, the cheques were returned to the plaintiff and amount was paid in cash to the defendant, which was duly acknowledged by the defendant. Upon receipt of the entire sale consideration the defendant got general power of attorney and special power of attorney duly registered with the Sub Registrar. . Delhi. Will was also executed by the defendant and was also got registered before the Sub registrar,. Delhi.

( 5 ) THUS the plaintiff claimed that she has been carrying on her business of jewellery from the shop as sole proprietor. The defendant was left with no right, title or interest in the shop. On 24. 10. 1998 the plaintiff op