The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to appoint a Receiver under Order XL CPC in cases of fraudulent transfer and the requirements for such appointment.

Manmohan, J.

1. Present suit has been filed for declaration, possession, mandatory injunction, damages and recovery of Rohini property.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property No.21, Pocket I-5, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’) had been originally purchased by one Mr. Narinder Kalra, who sold it to Mr. Manish Gupta, who in turn, sold it to the plaintiff under an Agreement to Sell dated 11th September, 1995. The property was mutated in plaintiff’s favour on 06th October, 2009 and thereafter a registered Conveyance Deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff on 13th November, 2009. A building plan was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff in 2011 and thereafter, the ground floor was constructed on the suit property in 2011.

3. It is the plaintiff’s case that since the plaintiff was a permanent resident of Alaknanda property at New Delhi, the suit property was lying vacant and unutilized.

4. The plaintiff is admittedly in possession of all the original documents of the suit property till date.

5. It is the plaintiff’s case in the present suit that in 2012, a sale deed of the suit property was executed in favour of defendant no.1 by a person who impersonated the plaintiff.

6. In the written statement, it is the defendant no.1’s case that the person who sold the property to defendant no.1 was introduced by defendant no.3. It is further averred that as the defendant no.3 owed money to the defendant no.1, no sale consideration was paid for purchase of the suit property. Subsequently, the property was mutated in the name of the defendant no.1 in MCD records.

7. On 03rd December, 2014, the defendant no.1 transferred the suit property to defendant nos.3 & 4, who happen to be husband and wife, by executing a sale deed.

8. Subsequently, the suit property was sold by defendant nos.3 & 4 to defendant nos.5 to 8 vide sale deed dated 02nd June, 2015. The defendant nos.5 to 8 had purchased the suit property for Rupees One Crore Eighty Five Lacs, for which they had taken a loan of Rupees One Crore Sixty Three Lacs from defendant no.9/bank. The said defendants are in admitted possession of the suit property and have electricity as well as telephone connections in their name.

9. Since there was inter se dispute between the defendant no.9/bank and defendant nos.5 to 8 with regard to non-payment of the loan, the matter was referred to arbitration and an arbitral award dated 15th November, 2016 has been passed in favour of defendant no.9/bank for a sum of Rupees One Crore Sixty Seven Lacs Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred Sixty One against defendant nos.5 to 8.

10. On 09th July, 2018, when this Court had heard the matter, the admitted position that emerged was that the suit property had been transferred in favour of the defendant no.1 by fraudulent means inasmuch as the plaintiff had never executed a sale deed in 2012 in favour of defendant no.1. Even the photograph of the seller on the sale deed executed in favour of defendant no.1 was not that of the plaintiff.

11. Further, learned counsel for defendant no.4 (who is the wife of defendant no.3), during the course of arguments, admitted that the transfer of title of the suit property in favour of the defendants was fraudulent and the defendant nos.1 to 3 were jointly carrying on the business of purchasing properties. He also drew attention of this Court to the written statement filed by defendant no.4. The relevant portion of the written statement filed by defendant no.4 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“........The defendant no.1 to 3 are in the business of real Estate for last several years and they have jointly made several transactions of property sale purchase in last 10-12 years. The answering defendant no.4 had no personal dealing with the plaintiff or the defendant no.1 and 2 as well as defendant no.5 to 8. The defendants no.1 to 3 have jointly purchased properties in past also as informed to the answering defendant no.4 by her husband defenda