SYED NOORUDDIN ALI HUSSAINI Vs. RECEIVER IN C S NO 14 OF 1958 ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT
LAWS(APH)-1969-6-16
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on June 20,1969

SYED NOORUDDIN ALI HUSSAINI Appellant
VERSUS
RECEIVER IN C. S. NO. 14 OF 1958 ON THE FILE OF THE HIGH COURT Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

A. V. B. [REFERRED TO]
NURUDDIN AHMED, RECEIVER VS. SUBODH CHANDRA MITRA [FOLLOWED ON]


JUDGEMENT

Gopalarao Ekbote, J. - (1.)This is an appeal from the ordsr of the Chief Judge, Citv Civil Court, Hyderabad made on 20-12-1966 in I. A. No. 856 of 1966 filed in O. P. No. 220 of 1966.
(2.)It arises in the following circumstances. The appellant filed O. P. No. 220/1966, an application, to sue in forma paupar's alleging inter-alia that he is 3 share-holder in the estate of Nawab Rasheeduddin Khan Shamsul-Umara IV; He has, therefore, filed a suit for partition to get a share in family property of Paigah estate as well as for a declaration that preliminary decree passed in C. S. No. 14/58 by the High Court is bad to the extent of his l/4th share in the family properties of Paigah. He also wanted separate possession of his share. From the plant it is clear that earlier CS. No. 14/58 was filed in 1958 before the Civil Court which was subsequently transferred to the High Court's original side and was numbered as CS. No. 14/58. That also was a suit for partition of the properties of Paigah estate. In that suit a compromise was effected and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The appellant-petitioner was not a party to that suit. It is argued that in April 1966 he filed an application seeking permission of the High Court in CS. No, 14/58 to file a suit for partition independently: Permission was granted on 20-8-1966. It is only then that the present petition in forma pauperis out of which this appeal arises was filed on 24-8-1966.
(3.)In O. P. No. 220 of 1966 the appellant seems to have filed I. A. No. 866/1966 urging that in execution of the decree obtained in C. S. No. 14/1958 the official Receiver is dividing the moveables including valuable jewels as well as immoveable properties amongst the parties to that suit. It was, therefore, contended that if the receiver divides the properties, there will be no property left which would satisfy the claim of the petitioner. He will thus be deprived of his valuable right. It is on these facts that he claimed an injunction against the Official Receiver directing him not to proceed with the division of the properties between the parties in C. S No. 14/58. To this petition he made only the receiver appointed in C. S. No. 14/58 and the Commissioner appointed for the purpose of division in the said suit as parties The other shareholders who were made parties in the pauper application have not been made parties to I. A. No. 866/1966.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.