CPC & Law of Limitation

CRE No. 6

Date of release of CRE Problem: 14th October ,2019

Date for CRE: 20th October, 2019

In an auction for the sale of a property, the respondent-defendant, Mr Karan

Aggarwal, purchased the subject matter property for an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. The property
was situated in Mumbai. The auction of the property was made by the other legal heirs of
applicant-plaintiff, Mr. Rishabh Aggarwal’s, grandfather as they claimed the title through a
will drafted by the grandfather. The applicant-plaintiff filed a civil suit in 2017 before the
District Court in Mumbai for a declaration that:

 the alienation made in favour of defendant-respondent Mr Karan Aggarwal is not

valid and binding

 for mesne profits,

 for possession and

 for other reliefs such as costs and interests. 

He also files an interlocutory application in 2019 for the appointment of a Receiver for the
suit property pending disposal of the suit and alleged that the property originally belonged to
his grandfather who executed his last will and testament on 2000 of which probate was also
obtained in 2010 from this Hon'ble Court. Under the said will, the testator made a provision
for his heirs including his wife, daughters and daughters' children, so that, the property may
be enjoyed by them during their lifetime and subsequently by their children absolutely. But,
in spite of the intention of the testator and the best care he has taken to secure the enjoyment
of property for his relations, the property has now fallen into the hands of strangers by
malpractices of some of the heirs of the testator. The strangers are presently in unjust and
illegal enjoyment of the property since a very long time. It is also alleged that if the
respondents are allowed to enjoy the income of the property during the pendency of the suit
herein, it may be even impossible after the decree to recover anything from them, apart from
some estimated amount. Further the respondents are not taking care of the property on
account of which the property has fallen into disrepair and they are not fetching good rent.

On the other hand, Mr Karan Aggarwal, the respondent-defendant (i.e., the auction-
purchaser) in possession of these properties contends that the present suit is the fourth suit
filed by the plaintiff's family for agitating the rights now claimed. None of them have been
pursued to the end and all earlier litigations have been abandoned. The last previous suit was
withdrawn and dismissed on his failure to pay the court-fee due to Government. Now the
valuation has been exaggerated and the suit is filed again in this Hon'ble Court. It is further
the argument of the respondent-defendant that the allegations made in the plaint are
inconsistent and misleading. Under the will of the applicant-plaintiff’s grandfather which
was probated, the members of the family were given definite rights and this was later on
concluded by a family arrangement culminating in the consent decree in 2015 which is on the
file of this Hon'ble Court. All the respective branches have been enjoying the properties
accordingly and even alienating the same. Mr Karan Aggarwal further argues that he has
parted with Rs. 20 lakhs and is in possession as a bona fide purchaser. Now this suit is
brought to get over all these proceedings and to ignore the family settlement which has to be
construed at the trial. It is enough to state that the parties comprising all the branches of the
family have accepted the arrangement and have been enjoying and exercising the right to
alienate the properties thereunder. 

His major point of contention is that the application for appointment of receiver has been
brought two years after the filing of the present suit and long after a similar application was
filed in the previous suit. This application is not bona fide and is intended to cause loss to
him.

Argue on behalf of the applicant (Plaintiff) and the respondent (Defendant) whether on a
consideration of the facts set out above, a case has been made out for the appointment of a
Receiver.