1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1602 of 2007 IN SUIT NO. 1208 of 2007 Ramakant B. Tiwari .. Plaintiff versus Lumbharam R. Choudhari .. Defendant ... Mr.Indu Prakash i/b Akhilesh Singh for the plaintiff. Mr.A.N. Nasikwalla for the defendants. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 28th April 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants. 2 By this motion, plaintiff seeks relief of injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating the suit property and also seeks appointment of Court receiver. 3. The plaintiff was the original owner of the 2 suit property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 got executed from him Power of Attorney and making fradulent use of the said Power of Attorney executed a conveyance of the suit property in favour of his own wife, the defendant no.2 herein. According to the plaintiff all was done fraudulently and therefore, he has sought relief of injunction against furtherh alienation and appointment of receiver as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant handed over for my inspection photocopy of the deed of conveyance and Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff. He submitted that the Power of Attorney was executed on 19th August 2006 before a Sub-Registrar and plaintiff and the sale deed was executed on 30th December 2006 after more than 4 months. This shows that there was no fraud at all. 5. The suit property was sold by the defendant no.1 to the defendant no.2, who is his wife for a consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- which is less than the market value as can be seen from an endorsement on the documents by the Collector of Stamps. Thus, there is a prima facie material to show that the sale was for a consideration less than the market value of the property. This is one of the circumstances which 3 is required to be taken into consideration while considering the question of alleged fraud. It is also to be noted that the sale deed is not to an independent person but the sale has been by the defendant no.1 as a Power of Attorney of the plaintiff in favour of his own wife. This is another circumstance which would be required to be taken into consideration. In my view, prima case is made out by the plaintiff entitling him to a relief of injunction against further alienation. 6. However, in my view, no case has been made out for appointment of a court receiver. Until the documents of conveyance is set aside the defendant no.2 is the owner. Hence, in my view, receiver cannot be appointed at this stage. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R . The defendants are restrained from selling, alienating, transferring or parting with the possession of the suit property to any third party till the disposal of the suit. Prayer for appointment of court receiver is however rejected. 4 (D.G. KARNIK, J)