S. Ravindra Bhat (Open Court)

The present common order will dispose of four applications preferred by the various parties. I.A No. 719/2009 seeks review of the order of this Court dated 4.12.2008; it is preferred by the defendant. I.A. Nos. 5299 & 5300/2009 have been filed by the plaintiff seeking impleadment of one Mr. Vinay Kumar Sinha and for temporary injunction restraining him from disturbing the status quo, respectively. The plaintiff also claims confirmation of an ad interim ex parte status quo order made on 22.4.2009, in I.A. No. 15006/2009.

2. The plaintiff in the Suit alleges to have acquired two plots A-4 & A-5, Samta Enclave, Qutab Vihar, Najafgarh, New Delhi ("the suit property"); it is stated that the defendant was the vendor. The suit also alleges that the plaintiff is an animal lover and wishes to put up a veterinary hospital, for the purposes of which he engaged the services of the defendant. It is claimed that the defendant assisted him in the acquisition of the suit property. The plaintiff alleges that the money for such acquisition was spent by him. In support of the claim that the plaintiff is a real and true owner of the suit property, he relies upon copies of documents, such as registered power of attorney, registered affidavit, registered Will executed by one Kaushlaya Devi in favour of the defendant and subsequently similar documents executed by her in favour of the plaintiff, in 2001. Copies of those documents have been placed on the record.

3. The plaintiff alleged that since he was relying heavily on the defendant, for the conduct of his affairs and even on the construction of the hospital, for which reason, he used to remit money periodically he did not suspect any ulterior motives. It is stated that in these circumstances, when he visited India during the Pooja festival in October, 2005, he discovered that the defendant had put up a new sign board on the property. The relevant averments, in this regard, made in the Suit are to the following effect: -

"38. That the plaintiff and his cousin visited the hospital thereafter on the next date but were not allowed to enter the hospital and were again threatened by the defendant and his men and they out of fear left the scene. It is submitted that the plaintiff was surprised to find that the hospital has been closed by the defendant. It is submitted that the defendants have removed the sign board of the hospital from the building. The plaintiff again contacted the police who told him to file a court case as she is claiming ownership right on the property. That the plaintiff had a short stay in India and has to return back to USA authorized his friends and relatives to pursue the case.

39. That the defendant is carrying out major addition and alternation in certain portion of the building of the said hospital. The defendant has put a new sign board on the hospital building as Shalil International School and has in the course of time started a school named above in the said building. It is submitted that the defendants have illegally occupied the building and are changing the construction of the building.

41. That from the fact stated above, it is crystal clear that the defendant has defrauded the plaintiff by winning his confidence and has misappropriated property and money to the tune of more than Rs. 50 Lacs. She has neither any title nor interest in plot No. 4 and 5 detailed in Schedule-I below. Her possession is unlawful. The plaintiff asked her to deliver the possession over the schedule-I of property along with all its fittings and fixtures but she refused. The defendant also failed to return the said amount of Rs. 9,68,009/-"

4. It is submitted that the defendant's possession is unlawful and her attempts to build on the property by carrying on unauthorized or illegal constructions, passing off the premises as her own, cannot be sustained in law. On the basis of these allegations, the plaintiff approached this Court for the relief of inter alia a decree of