The fact that the appellant claims to have paid money but had number indicated about the payment of huge sum of money in his income tax returns has been rightly companysidered by the High Court as a relevant factor.
The High Court took numbere of the factual scenario as presented by the parties.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Appellant is the original plaintiff, respondent No.2 is original defendant No.1 and respondent No.1 is original defendant No.2.
Trial Court vide order dated 14th May, 2004 directed defendants to maintain status quo in respect of the suit flat.
The case of the appellant is that he entered into an agreement to purchase the suit flat on 19th March, 2004 from defendant No.1 who has executed the said agreement on behalf of himself and his wife, defendant No.2 on the basis of her authorization, i.e. by unregistered power of attorney alleged to have been executed by her in favour of her husband.
It was, therefore, companycluded that there appears to be some amount of companylusion between the appellant and respondent No.1 and the matrimonial discord between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 appears to have resulted in the companylusive transaction.
An application for interim injunction was filed for ad interim relief.
The trial Court initially vide its order dated 12th May, 2004 refused to grant ad interim relief.
It was also numbered that initially the trial Court refused to pass any interim order but strangely the husband of respondent No.1 who is supposed to have executed the agreement appeared in Court and stated that he has numberobjection to the order of status quo being granted.
A few facts like payment of huge sum of money by cash were companysidered to be suspicious circumstances.
The agreement to sale dated 19th March, 2004 between original plaintiff and defendant No.1 mentions that an amount of Rs.11,40,000/ was paid to defendant No.1 respondent NO.2 herein in cash and possession was delivered to the vendee purchaser.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Courts order of status quo was justified when huge sums of money has been paid by the appellant and the appointment of a receiver directing delivery of possession to respondent No.1 is clearly number warranted under the circumstances of the case, particularly, when husband of respondent No.1, as has been even admitted by respondent No.1, is owner of half portion of the property.
However, it appears defendant No.1 respondent No.2 herein appeared before the trial Court and stated his numberobjection for grant of injunction in favour of the appellant.
An appeal was filed by the respondent No.1, before the High Court.
Similarly, it was held that number mention of the payment in the Income tax returns was companysidered suspicious.
It took numbere of the fact that the so called Power of Attorney was an unregistered document.
The marital discord between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 has been over emphasised and the appellant is numberhing but a dummy of respondent No.2 i.e. husband of respondent No.1.
Arising out of SLP C No.15581 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Original defendants are husband and wife.
It was held that the order of status quo passed by the trial Court was really number warranted in the circumstances of the case.
They purchased suit flat in their joint name in the year 1998 for a companysideration of Rs.2 lakhs.
Appellant Plaintiff apprehending threat to his possession filed the suit Regular Civil Suit No.268 of 2004 to restrain respondent No.1 and her husband from disturbing his possession.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court setting aside the order of status quo passed by the trial Court and directing appointment of a receiver and handing over possession of the disputed property to respondent No.1.
