Point of Law: Irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff, if, at the end of the trial, it were to succeed in the suit, but in the absence of an interim injunction, it stood dispossessed, or third-party interests created in the suit property.

ORDER :

I.A. No. 4937/2021 (by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for ad-interim ex-parte injunction)

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC for ad-interim ex-parte injunction.

2. The plaintiff is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) suing through the ‘Karta’ Mr. Sunil Kumar Chaturvedi (henceforth referred to as the ‘Karta”) for declaration of title over the suit property, namely, Flat No. 76, C-2C, Pocket-2, Janakpuri, New Delhi, alongwith Barsati on the roof. The plaintiff claims to be the rightful owner in possession of the said property. Consequential reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions have been sought against the defendant No. 1 to restrain the defendant No. 1 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property or alienating or creating any third-party rights over it.

3. The facts as set out are that the suit property had been originally leased by the Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) to one, Mr. Inder Pal Singh Pantle on 20th September, 1977. Subsequently, on 11th July, 1986, after receiving permission and approval from the DDA, he sold the property to one, Mr. Joginder Pal Singh, by executing an Agreement to Sell and other relevant documents. Later, a Sale Deed was registered on 13th February, 1987. Thus, all leasehold rights in the suit property were transferred to Mr. Joginder Pal Singh absolutely. On 18th April, 1988, Mr. Joginder Pal Singh executed an Agreement to Sell and a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of defendant No. 2/Smt. Rita Chaudhary, who is the sister-in-law of the Karta. The defendant No. 2 permitted the Karta to live in the suit property alongwith his family and thus, the Karta has remained in the peaceful possession of the suit property since 1988 in terms of the internal family understanding.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 30th October, 1995, defendant No. 2 transferred her title and interest in the suit property in his favour by way of a GPA and Agreement to Sell and other documents and thus, w.e.f. that date, he became the absolute owner of the suit property. On 13th January, 2000, the plaintiff applied to the DDA for conversion of the suit property into freehold, but since the requisite conversion charges could not be deposited, the conversion did not take place.

5. Mr. Siddharth Chaturvedi, a co-parcener of the plaintiff, being the son of the Karta, had some disputes with his employer, Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd. (‘FTPL’) as there were allegations made by FTPL that Mr. Siddharth Chaturvedi had siphoned of funds collected from Fastway Media Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. (‘FMCNPL’) a subsidiary of FTPL, by receiving payments from cable operators but not depositing the same with FMCNPL. A FIR was also registered against him by FMCNPL on 20th March, 2017, being FIR No. 65/2017 at Police Station Division No. 5, Ludhiana. He was also arrested on 10th September, 2017.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that under the coercion of FTPL and FMCNPL, it was compelled to transfer four different properties, including the suit property, in the name of the representatives and associates of FTPL and FMCNPL and all title documents, including those relating to the suit property were taken from the custody of the plaintiff on the pretext of preparing Agreement to Sell etc. However, the defendant No. 1 insisted that the Agreement to Sell should be executed by the defendant No. 2. In these circumstances, the defendant No. 2 agreed to execute the Agreement to Sell in favour of the defendant No. 1 though she had no marketable title or possession over the suit property. She did so only in order to secure the release of the son of the Karta, Mr. Siddharth Chaturvedi.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that in actual fact, no consideration had passed for this Agreement to Sell, since, the defendant No. 1 had handed over a cheque of Rs. 44 lakhs to defendant No. 2 a