Bombay High Court
Praduman Kumar Singh vs Haribansh Ram Akbal Singh And Ors on 25 January, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
(18)-WP-773-22.doc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BALAJI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
GOVINDRAO
PANCHAL
Digitally signed by
BALAJI GOVINDRAO
PANCHAL
WRIT PETITION NO.773 OF 2022
Date: 2022.01.27
17:16:35 +0530
Praduman Kumar Singh ..Petitioner
Versus
Haribansh Ram Akbal Singh and Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. Ashutosh R. Gole a/w Mr. Ketan A. Dhavle, for the Petitioner.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2022
P.C.
1. The petitioner/plaintiff initiated Special Civil Suit
No.118 of 2021 based on an oral agreement of sale. It is alleged
that flat of which he is in possession as leave and licensee was
agreed to be sold to him. He would claim that through an oral
agreement of 2019, flat was agreed to be sold by defendant Nos.1 to
3 for total consideration of Rs.1,01,00,000/-, out of which
petitioner/plaintiff has paid amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in 2019,
Rs.80,00,000/- in 2020 and Rs.15,00,000/- in 2021 of which
relevant receipts/evidence is available.
2. According to him, defendant Nos.1 to 3 so as to frustrate
the claim of the petitioner/ plaintiff created third party interest in
favour of defendant No.4 of the very same property vide registered
sale-deed dated 11th January, 2021 wherein title claimed to have
BGP. 1 of 3
(18)-WP-773-22.doc.
been created in favour of defendant No.4 for a consideration of
Rs.81,00,000/-. The same has prompted petitioner/plaintiff to raise
challenge to the sale-deed dated 11 th January, 2021 executed by
defendant Nos.1 to 3 in favour of defendant No.4. Based on the
title referred above created in favour of defendant No.4 by
defendant Nos.1 to 3 vide registered sale-deed dated 11 th January,
2021, in counter claim of defendant No.4 for possession, provisions
of Order XL Rule 1 and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC were
invoked by defendant No.4 vide Exh.37 for appointment of Court
Receiver. Vide impugned order dated 29th October, 2021, Trial Court
appointed present petitioner as Court Receiver and further directed
him to furnish an undertaking that he shall remain as custodian of
the suit property till the decision of the suit with further direction to
pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- which is permitted to be
withdrawn by the defendant No.4.
3. While questioning the aforesaid directions by Court
below, viz. furnishing an undertaking as reflected in Condition No.4
of the impugned order, deposit of compensation of Rs.30,000/- per
month as reflected in Condition No.5 and permission to defendant
No.4 to withdraw the said amount of compensation, the contentions
are, the Court while dealing with the claim of defendant No.4 has
failed to work out equities having regard to the fact that petitioner
has already parted consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- which is more
than the consideration paid by the defendant No.4. According to
him, the petitioner's possession over the suit property since 2009,
BGP. 2 of 3
(18)-WP-773-22.doc.
in the capacity of licensee is not appreciated by the Court below. He
would claim that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of
the Calcutta High Court reported in 2009 SCC Online Cal 1203 in
the matter of Poonam Kejriwal Vs. Bhagwandas Auto Finance Ltd. &
Ors..
4. In view of above, issue notice to the respondents,
returnable on 28th February, 2022.
5. In the meantime, petitioner shall continue to deposit an
amount of Rs.30,000/-. However, rest of the order to the extent of
Condition Nos.4 and 6 shall remain stayed.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BGP. 3 of 3
