Shri Sudhakar Verma vs Sh. Rakesh Kumar Arora
2004 Latest Caselaw 611 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Chopra, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which the plaintiff has prayed for grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from transferring, as signing, creating third party interest or from parting with possession of property No. 102-B, M.C. Bhawan, 11/56, D.B. Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi till the disposal of the suit.

2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application, briefly stated are that the plaintiff and defendant were carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Adhunic Constructions. Their wives were carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Adhunic Technologies and M/s Passive Controls Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff and defendant fell apart and agreed to dissolve the partnership business w.e.f. 2.6.1998. A dissolution deed was executed and got registered also. On 7.6.1998 in the presence of two intermediaries a settlement was arrived at according to which property at Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh which was in the name of plaintiff and defendant was to go to the share of defendant whereas the property at Kirti Nagar which had been allotted on lease hold basis was to go to the plaintiff. In terms of the dissolution deed the defendant executed an Agreement to Sell, GPA, Special Power of Attorney, Indemnity bond etc. in respect of his share in Kirti Nagar property so that the property could be transferred to the plaintiff and the plaintiff executed a Relinquishment Deed with respect to his undivived + share in Desh Bandhu Gupta Road Property so that it could be transferred to the defendant. The plaintiff was to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,150/- to the defendant whereas the defendant had to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the plaintiff. It appears that some misunderstandings cropped up and as such neither the plaintiff paid the aforesaid sum to the defendant nor the defendant made payment of Rs. 1 lakh to the plaintiff. The defendant, however, subsequently deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh in the Bank Account of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff it was done merely with a view to raise a plea that the defendant had acquired full rights in the Desh Bandhu Gupta Road property in terms of the Disssolution Deed. The defendant vide letter dated 24.5.1994 informed the plaintiff that he had cancelled and revoked the General Power of Attorney, Special Power of Attorney executed by him in favor of the plaintiff in regard to the Kirti Nagar Property and got the said document registered also on 28.4.1999. According to the plaintiff this act of the defendant was illegal and with malafide intention and amounted to repudiating the terms of the dissolution died. In these premises the plaintiff is claiming a decree declaring that the registered Relinquishment Deed dated 21.9.1998 is liable to be cancelled and mandatory injunction directing the defendant to deliver the said Relinquishment deed to him for cancellation. He also claims a preliminary decree of partition in respect of Desh Bandhu Gupta Road property and its division by metes and bounds. A decree for rendition of accounts of partnership business and a decree for damages is also prayed for. The application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC is also based on these very grounds.

3. The defendant has filed written statement with a counter claim in which he prays for partition of Kirti Nagar property by metes and bounds and damages. The defendant admits the dissolution deed dated 2.6.1998 and pleads that he has performed his part of the obligations under the said deed but the plaintiff is trying to take advantage being in possession of Kirti Nagar Property. He pleads that the plaintiff has received a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from him and executed Relinquishment Deed etc. in respect of Desh Bandhu Gupta Road property but has not paid to the defendant Rs.2,25,150/- which he had agreed to pay in respect of the share of the defendant in Kirti Nagar property. According to the defendant the plaintiff has become dishonest and refused to perform has part of contract and as such he was constrained to cancel and revoke power of attorney executed by him in respect of Kirti Nagar property. He claims partition of Kirti Nagar property.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that after entering into dissolution deed dated 2.6.1998 which was registered on 22.9.1998 disputes had arisen between the parties and as such the plaintiff is seeking partition of Desh Bandhu Gupta Road property which had fallen to the share of the defendant whereas the defendant is seeking partition of Kirti Nagar property which had fallen to the share of the plaintiff. It prima facie appears that the plaintiff has not received the sum of Rs. 1 lakh from the defendant voluntarily and the defendant has tried to act smart by depositing the said amount in the Bank Account of the plaintiff and also resorted to the cancellation of the power of attorney in favor of the plaintiff so as to create a situation that the transfer of Desh Bandhu Gupta Road property becomes concluded whereas the transfer of Kirti Nagar property in favor of the plaintiff in terms of dissolution deed remains in limbo. Since both the parties are now claiming partition of each other's property and are making counter claims against each other which require investigation and trial, this Court finds that there is a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff for restraining the defendant from selling parting with or transferring Desh Bandhu Gupta property till the disposal of the suit otherwise a situation may arise that the Desh Bandhu Gupta property may be further transferred or sold whereas the Kirti Nagar property which had come to the plaintiff may remain a disputed property in spite of the fact that both the properties were sought to be transferred simultaneously in terms of the dissolution deed between the parties. It is yet to be seen as to whether this dissolution deed was actually acted upon or not by the parties in terms of their settlement and as to whether the defndant had any justification or not to cancel the documents in respect of Kirti Nagar property.

5. In case the parties are not directed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit in regard to the aforesaid two properties irreparable loss/injury may be caused to the plaintiff. The balance of convenience is also more in favor of the preserving the status quo in respect of the two properties till the disposal of suit.

6. In view of the foregoing reasons the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC is allowed and till the disposal of the suit the parties are directed to maintain status quo in regard to both the properties, i.e. property at Desh Bandh Gupta Road and property at Kirti Nagar. Parties shall not sell, transfer or part with the possession thereof till further orders from this court.

7. I.A. Stands disposed of.

8. Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit pending before this court as the observations made herein are tentative only.