Suraj Bhan Bansal and Another v. Rakesh Bansal and Others

1. Shri Suraj Bhan Bansal – Plaintiff No.1 (hereinafter, „Plaintiff No.1‟) and M/s. Rakesh Trading Company (HUF) – Plaintiff No.2 (hereinafter, „Plaintiff No.2‟) have filed the present suit against Mr. Rakesh Bansal – Defendant No.1 (hereinafter, „Defendant No.1‟) - who is son of Plaintiff No.1, Defendant No.2 - Mrs. Anupama Bansal (hereinafter, „Defendant No.2‟) - wife of Shri Rakesh Bansal, and Defendant No.3 - M/s. R. G. Associates (hereinafter, „Defendant No.3‟) - who was a tenant in the premises. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Plaintiff No.1 is the karta of Plaintiff No.2 HUF. Plaintiff No.2 is the owner of a farm house consisting of agricultural land measuring 21 bighas 16 biswas comprised in Khasra Nos.50/23 min (0-07), 21 (4-16), 22 (3-16), 58/3 (0-09), 1(4-12), 2 (5-12), 10 (2-00), 26 (0-04) situated in revenue estate of Village Bakoli, Tehsil Alipur, District North, Delhi, and known as Suraj Vatika, G.T. Road, on 2019:DHC:1503 Palla Bakhtawar Pur Road, Near Lavanya, Delhi (hereinafter „suit property‟). Defendant No.1 is the son of Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.2 is his daughter-in-law. Plaintiff No.1 had executed a General Power of Attorney (hereinafter „GPA‟) dated 19th March, 1998 in favour of Defendant No.1, his son, in order to enable his son to carry out certain acts on his behalf. Defendant No.1, by virtue of the said GPA, started handling bank accounts of Plaintiff Nos.[1] & 2, as well. The Plaintiffs came to know in January, 2013 that some properties belonging to the Plaintiffs have been sold by Defendant No.1 and that he had utilized various amounts from the bank accounts, without the consent of the Plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff No.1 revoked the GPA dated 19th March, 1998 by executing cancellation deed dated 17th May, 2013.

2. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs came to know that Defendant No.1 had executed a sale deed dated 24th July, 2013 transferring the suit property in favour of his wife, Defendant No.2. The said sale deed was registered and on the basis of said sale deed, the property also got mutated in favour of Defendant No.2. The Plaintiffs, thereafter, examined the bank accounts and realized that even the amount of approximately Rs.2.[4] crores, which was shown as the sale consideration paid by Defendant No.2 to Defendant No.1, were returned back by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2. In this manner, by utilising a cancelled GPA, the title in the suit property has been usurped by Defendants No. 1 and 2.

3. The suit property is being used regularly for commercial purposes, however, despite orders of this Court, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have refused to render accounts in respect of the same. Under these circumstances, the present suit has been filed seeking declaration, possession, rendition of accounts and injunction. Reliefs sought in the suit are as under: “(a) pass a decree of declaration in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the defendants Nos.l and 2 that Plaintiff No.2 thereby declaring that Plaintiff No.2 is the owner of Farm House consisting of Agricultural land measuring 21 Bighas, 16 Biswas, comprised in Khasra Nos.50/23 min (0-07), 21 (4-16), 22 (3-16), 58/3 (0-09), 1(4-12), 2 (5-12), 10 (2-00), 26 (0-04) situated in revenue estate of Village Bakoli, Tehsil Alipur, District North, Delhi, and known as Suraj Vatika, G.T. Road, on Palla Bakhtawar Pur Road, Near Lavanya, Delhi; (b) pass a decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants to hand over the possession of suit property Farm House consisting of Agricultural land measuring 21 Bighas, 16 Biswas, comprised in Khasra Nos.50/23 min (0-07), 21 (4-16), 22 (3-16), 58/3 (0- 09), 1 (4-12), 2 (5-12), 10 (2-00), 26 (0-04) situated in revenue estate of Village Bakoli, Tehsil Alipur, District North, Delhi, and known as Suraj Vatika, G.T. Road, on Palla Bakhtawar Pur Road, Near Lavanya, Delhi to Plaintiff No.2;

(c) pass a decree of declaration against the Defendants

Nos.[1] and 2 and in favour of the Plaintiffs thereby declaring the sale deed dated 24.07.2013 registered in the office of Sub-registrar-VI-A, Pitam Pura, District North West, Delhi with Registration no.3928, in Book No.1, Volume No.3103 on pages 92 to 96 in respect of the suit property being Farm House consisting of Agricultural land measuring 21 Bighas, 16 Biswas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 50/23 min (0-07), 21 (4-16), 22 (3-16), 58/3 (0-09), 1 (4-12), 2 (5-12), 10 (2-00), 26 (0-04) situated in revenue estate of Village Bakoli, Tehsil Alipur, District North, Delhi, and known as Suraj Vatika, G.T. Road, on Palla Bakhtawar Pur Road, Near Lavanya, Delhi, entered into by defendant No.1 with defendant No.2 as sham, collusive, and camouflage; direct an order for delivery of the said sale deed; and upon delivery thereof to cancel the said sale deed dated 24.07.2013; and send an intimation of the cancellation of these documents to the Registrar of Assurances, Sub Registrar VI B, Alipur, Delhi where the said document has been registered;

(d) pass a decree of rendition of accounts in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the defendants thereby directing defendants to render true and correct accounts and provide the details of the benefits received by way of rent, license fees and other profits of any nature whatsoever received by them from the properties of the Plaintiffs including suit property i.e. Farm House consisting of Agricultural land measuring 21 Bighas, 16 Biswas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 50/23 min (0-07), 21 (4-16), 22 (3-16), 58/3 (0-09), 1 (4-12), 2 (5-12), 10 (2-00), 26 (0-04) situated in revenue estate of Village Bakoli, Tehsil Alipur, District North, Delhi, and known as Suraj Vatika, G.T. Road, on Palla Bakhtawar Pur Road, Near Lavanya, Delhi and to hand over and transfer the benefit so received to and in favour of the Plaintiff and a Local Commissioner be appointed to go into the accounts and a decree be passed for the amount found payable to the respective parties; (e) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against defendants thereby restraining said defendants, their successors, legal heirs, attorneys, representatives, assignees, and/or nominees from selling, alienating, transferring, parting with possession and/ or creating third party interest in the suit property i.e. Farm House consisting of Agricultural land measuring 21 Bighas, 16 Biswas, Tehsil Alipur, District North, Delhi, and known as Suraj Vatika, G.T. Road, on Palla Bakhtawar Pur Road, Near Lavanya, Delhi; (f) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against defendant No.1 thereby restraining said defendant No.1, his successors, legal heirs, attorneys, representatives, assignees, and/or nominees from acting for and on behalf of the Plaintiff No.1 on the basis of power of attorney dated 19.03.1998; (g) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against defendants thereby restraining the defendant No.3 to.pay the rent of the suit property to the defendants Nos.[1] and 2 and/ or to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the defendants Nos. l and 2 or to any other person upon termination of the tenancy; (h) pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of directing the defendant No.3 to pay the rent of the suit premises to the Plaintiff No.2;

(i) pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of directing the defendant No.3 that in case of termination of tenancy of the suit property, to hand over the possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff No.2 and not to any body else; (j) pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against defendants thereby directing the defendants to hand over and deliver the lease deeds/ rent agreements executed by the said defendants in respect of the suit property; (k) Award costs of suit in favour of plaintiff and against defendants;”

4. In the written statement, the case of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is that the suit does not disclose any cause of action. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 further plead that Plaintiff No.1 took sanyas in 1998, in view of which he gave a GPA to his son i.e. Defendant No.1. Thus, by virtue of the GPA, Defendant No.1 became the karta of the HUF - M/s. Rakesh Trading Company as well. It is further averred that the cancellation of the GPA dated 17th May, 2013 was never informed to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and thus, the cancellation cannot come into effect as per Section 208 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Defendant No.1 claims that he is also a member of the HUF and without dissolution of the HUF, the suit for possession is not maintainable.

5. In the replication, the Plaintiffs averred that cancellation of the GPA was duly notified to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 vide letter dated 17th May, 2013 as also public notice dated 7th June, 2013, which were both prior to the sale deed dated 24th July, 2013, which was entered into between Defendant Nos.[1] & 2. It is further submitted that the GPA does not authorize Defendant No.1 to become the karta of Plaintiff No.2.

6. The suit was originally listed on 30th May, 2014 on which date Ld. Single Judge of this Court had passed the following orders. “I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and perused the plaint, application and the supporting documents. I am satisfied that this is a fit case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction and in case ex parte ad interim injunction is not granted, plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable loss. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, defendant no.2 is restrained from selling, alienating, transferring or parting with possession of the suit property bearing agricultural land measuring

21 Bighas, 16 biswas, comprised in Khasra Nos.50/23 min (0-07), 21 (4-16), 22 (3-16), 58/3 (0-09), 1 (4-12), 2 (5-12), 10 (2-00), 26 (0-04) situated in revenue estate of Village Bakoli, Tehsil Alipur, District North, Delhi and known as Suraj Vatika, G.T. Road, on Palla Bakhtawar Pur Road, Near Lavanya, Delhi. Defendant no.2 is also directed to deposit rents which are being received from the suit property with the Registrar General of this court within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Defendant no.2 is further directed to maintain a record in case the property is given on lease, rent licence for a short period and file details of persons to whom the property is leased and the amounts received, along with the written statement. Defendant no.l is further restrained from acting in any manner through the Power of Attorney dated 19.3.1998, which stands cancelled by the plaintiff no.l. Provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be complied with, within 7 days.”

7. Thus, while protecting the status quo in the property, the Court had directed that the rents being received from the suit property ought to be deposited in the Court. Defendant No. 2 was also directed to maintain a complete list of persons to whom the property is being leased as also amounts received from them. Defendant No.1 was restrained from acting on the basis of the GPA. The Court had also directed parties to explore mediation. Admission/denial of the documents was concluded on 18th September, 2015. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 admitted the sale deed dated 24th July, 2013, which is exhibited as Exhibit P[1]. The Plaintiffs, thereafter, moved an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC being I.A. No.23589/2015. On 8th August, 2016 in an application under Order XI Rules 12 to 14 CPC, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to produce on record the original rent deed entered into with Defendant No.3. On 25th October, 2018, this Court had directed the presence of the parties, as also Defendant No.3. On 10th December, 2018, shockingly, it was disclosed to the Court that the tenant, Defendant No.3, had vacated the property in December, 2014 itself. On the said date, the statement of the tenant and Defendant No.1 were recorded, which read as under: “Statement of Mr. Ravi Wadhwa, S/o Mr. Atam Prakash Wadhwa. R/o A-26, Swarn Singh Road. Adarsh Nagar. Delhi-110033, Mob.No.9811295217 On S.A. M/s R.G. Associates was the tenant in the suit property. It is a partnership firm of myself and Mr. Gajendra Gupta. We were tenants in the said property till December, 2014. After the order dated 30th May, 2014, we have deposited the rent for six months i.e. from June, 2014 to December, 2014 in this Court. After that we have vacated the property. We did not inform the Court as we were not called in Court after October, 2014. Statement of Mr. Rakesh Bansal S/o Mr. Suraj Bhan Bansal. R/o G-88. Phase-I, Ashok Vihar. Delhi. Mob.No.9811139205 On S.A. I have been taking care of this property since the time my father took Sannyas in 1998. There is a farm house located at the property and we are using it for commercial purposes. The property is rented out for holding functions and parties since the last ten years. We had given the property on rent to M/s R.G. Associates - Defendant No.3. From 1st January, 2015, they had vacated the property and have returned the property to us. We are using the property for commercial use on our own. On an annual basis approximately 40 events take place at this property. After taking care of the day to day expenses and other expenditure, we earn about Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/per month out of this property. I am aware of the order which has been passed by this Court that the rent shall be deposited. However, since the property is not on rent anymore, we did not deposit the rent. We did not inform the Court that the tenant had vacated the property. Currently, the property is being given by us to various customers on per day basis. We are not into catering business. We have created a Pandal in the property and we give the same to the customers.”

8. Thereafter, arguments were heard on the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on 22nd February, 2019.

9. The orders passed by this Court initially on 30th May, 2014 show that Defendant No.2 was directed to deposit the rent, which was received from the suit property with the Registrar General of this Court within two weeks. Further, records were also to be maintained in case the property is given on lease. This order, though having been passed on 30th May, 2014, a sum of Rs.1.62 lakhs was deposited, which is kept in FDR. Thereafter, a further sum of Rs.81,000/- was deposited. Last deposit was made in December, 2014, subsequent to which no amount has been deposited by the Defendants. The statements recorded above reveal that the property is being used for commercial purposes and a complete list of persons to whom the property was given and the amounts received were to be filed. This order has not been complied with. A perusal of the statement given on 10th December, 2018 by one of the partners of the tenanted firm M/s. R. G. Associates shows that the tenant merely deposited the rent for the period of six months i.e. June to December and then the property was vacated. Thereafter, Defendant Nos.[1] & 2 took no steps to inform the Court that Defendant No.3 had vacated the suit property. No steps were being taken by Defendant No.2 to deposit the rent that was being earned from letting out the premises. A perusal of the statement of Mr. Rakesh Bansal shows that Defendant Nos.[1] & 2 have been earning an admitted a sum of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month from this property. From January, 2015 for more than three years, Defendant Nos.[1] & 2 have been in complete non-compliance of the orders of this Court. The suit property is a large chunk of land, which is being utilized for commercial purposes and hosting of parties, on a daily basis. It is an admitted fact is that the property is being put to commercial use and a pandal has been created for giving to the customers on a per day basis. Despite earning huge sums of money from the suit property, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had not cared to comply with the orders.

10. Further, a perusal of Exhibit P[1], which is the sale deed, shows that it has following recitals. “This Sale Deed is made and executed at Delhi on this 24th day of July, 2013 by Rakesh Trading Company HUF, through its Authorised person Shri Rakesh Bansal, Son of Shri Suraj Bhan Bansal Authorised by its Karta Shri Suraj Bhan Bansal Son of Shri Kedar Nath, resident of C-25, Cottage Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, vide regd. GPA as document No.7606 in Addl. Book No.IV, Volume No. 4752, on pages 47 to 50, dt 19/03/1998 duly regd. in the office of Sub-Registrar No.1, Delhi, hereinafter called the VENDOR. >>>>IN FAVOUR OF<<<< Smt. Anupama Bansal, wife of Shri Rakesh Bansal, resident of C-25, Cottage Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi – 110033, hereinafter called the Vendee The ……. of the VENDOR and the VENDEE shall mean and include the parties, their legal heirs, executors, successors, representatives and assigns.