Appeal No. 154 of 2013. Case: Dhallo Devi and Ors. Vs Bank of Baroda and Ors.. Delhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)

Case NumberAppeal No. 154 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Sumeher Bajaj, Advocate and For Respondents: Arun Aggarwal, Advocate
JudgesRanjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order I Rule 10; Order XL Rule 1; Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2; Constitution Of India - Article 226
Judgement DateMarch 22, 2016
CourtDelhi DRAT DRAT (Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunals)


Ranjit Singh, J. (Chairperson)

  1. The Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of Rs. 1,27,68,581/- is allowed with interest @ 12% per annum from 23rd May, 2003 till recovery with costs from Cheena Apple Traders, Mr. Chander Shekhar Saini s/o. Mr. Beer Singh and Mr. Chander Shekhar Saini as L.R. of Mr. Beer Singh. The Bank has been held entitled to recover the amount by sale of the mortgaged property bearing No. C-11, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. Aggrieved against this order, the appellants, who are defendant Nos. 4 to 9 have filed this Appeal. Their grievance seems to be against that part of direction whereby the Tribunal below has allowed the recovery of this amount by sale of the property C-11, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'New Sabzi Mandi property'). It was claimed that this property was allotted by DDA in favour of Mr. Sher Singh and Mr. Beer Singh jointly. They had statedly applied to the President of India through Delhi Administration for allotment of the plot of land under the scheme of allotment of shop/plots/sites at New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur. The appellants would urge that the application had been submitted by Mr. Sher Singh individually with such declaration that the amount had been paid by Mr. Sher Singh, and receipt of the same had been issued in favour of Mr. Sher Singh in his life time, which was filed before the Tribunal as well. The DDA had then issued a letter handing over the possession of the property jointly to Mr. Sher Singh and Mr. Beer Singh on 6th April, 1970. It is stated that the possession was taken by Mr. Sher Singh and Mr. Beer Singh individually and that Mr. Beer Singh had applied individually for half portion of the said property.

  2. The President of India had executed a lease deed in respect of the alleged mortgaged property for a consideration of Rs. 12,365.50, which was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar. It is averred that Mr. Sher Singh and Mr. Beer Singh had jointly constructed basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor over the said plot of land. It is urged that both were owners of half share each as allottees and they were in joint possession of the said plot during their life time.

  3. The appellants would also disclose that Mr. Beer Singh had let out some portion of the property but he did not render account to Mr. Sher Singh during his life time despite Mr. Sher Singh having approached Mr. Beer Singh in this regard requesting him to render account of realisation from the rent which he collected. As per the appellants, Mr. Beer Singh failed to furnish any account for which Mr. Sher Singh had filed a Civil Suit against Mr. Beer Singh for decree of partition in respect of the property.

  4. The Suit filed before the High Court was taken up on 11th September, 1986. The High Court had granted ex parte stay restraining Mr. Beer Singh from transferring, alienating, encumbering the property in any manner whatsoever. On 10th October, 1986, this order was extended till further orders and Mr. Beer Singh was restrained from realising rent from the various tenants of the property. This order was also intimated to the tenants. The case before the High Court was adjourned from time to time for completing pleadings.

  5. On 3rd October, 1989, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while disposing of an application under Order 40, Rule 1 read with Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 appointed a Receiver in respect of the property to manage it and to collect the rent. 37% of the rent was to be paid to Mr. Sher Singh while Mr. Beer Singh was to get 50% of the said amount. The balance 13% was to be kept by the Receiver in a separate Bank account to be opened in a nationalised Bank. Counsel for Mr. Beer Singh had undertaken not to transfer, alienate and encumber the Suit property without seeking prior leave of the Court. The said...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT