D .P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) These three appeals, arise out of a common order passed by the learned by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated February 6, 1982 by which he dismissed the applications filed by the plaintiff appellant as by defendants Nos. 3,5 and (sic) before him, for appointment of a receiver under order 40 Rule 1 C.P.C. and in the alternative for issuing a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. As all these three appeals arise out of the same suit and pertain to the same matter, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE undisputed facts are that Maharaja Umaid Singh of Jodhpur died on June 18, 1947 and his eldest son, Hanuwant Singh succeeded him to the 'gaddi' as the Ruler of the former State of Jodhpur, while his other sons, Himmat Singh, plaintiff Devi Singh and Dalip Singh defendants were given maintenance grants by Maharaja Hanuwantsingh. On May 1(sic), 1948 Maharaja Hanuwantsingh executed a covenant and later a merger agreement to merge the State of Jodhpur into the larger State of Rajasthan. On March 24. 1949 the Government of India prepared a list of moveable and immoveable properties which were agreed to be kept as properties of the Ex -Ruler, Shri Han want Singh On the formation of the new State of Rajasthan on March 30, 1949 the State Government took possession of all properties belonging to the State, while the personal properties were then left under the control and ownership of the Ex -Ruler. Shri Hanuwant Singh died on January 26, 1952 leaving his minor son, Shri Gajsingh. The case of Shri Himmatsingh as averred in the plat this that Shri Umaid Singh upon his death left considerable joint Hindu family properties, as he was covered by the Mitakshra School of Hindu law, and the said properties remained in the hands of late Maharaja Hanuwant Singh and since his death they are under the control of Shri Gaj Singh. The plaintiff claimed his share in the ancestral joint Hindu family properties. By means of a separate application the plaintiff prayed that until the decision of the suit a Receiver be appointed in respect of the entire ancestral movable and immoveable properties and in the alternative, a temporary injunction be issued prohibiting the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 9 to 13 from disposing of any of the joint Hindu family properties during the suit. The learned District Judge issued an expert ad interim injunction against the defendants nos. 1,2 and 9 to 13 restraining them from disposing of joint Hindu family properties till further orders. Similar applications for obtaining temporary ad interim injunctions were also moved by defendant No 3 Devi Singh and by defendant No. 5 Yaswant singh and defendant No 6 Rajendra Singh, sons of plaintiff Himmat Singh. After hearing both the parties all the aforesaid applications for temporary injunction and for appointment of a receiver were dismissed by the learned District Judge and the ad interim injunction order issued by him on August 26, 1981 was vacated by the order dated February 6, 1982. How ever, the learned District Judge, Jodhpur imposed two conditions upon the defendants nos. 1,2 and 9 to 13 namely, that they should keep and maintain proper and correct accounts regarding the properties mentioned in Schedule J annexed to the plaint and that they should file a balance sheet of their affairs within 3 months after the close of each financial year and they should also submit within 15 days of the close of each calander year a statement regarding the disposal of any moveable or immoveable properties made during that year.
(3.) IN these appeals, which were advanced by the learned Counsel were almost the same as were advanced before the learned District Judge. The contention of the appellants was that the parties were Hindus and wear governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and that the properties included in the list of private properties were properties belonging to the joint Hindu family of which the parties were Co -parcenars, including the appellants, were unable to exercise their rights in respect of the ancestral joint Hindu family properties, the same could be exercised after the formation of Rajasthan and after the promulgation of the Constitution. Thus, according to the appellants, the plaintiff as the defendants nos 3 and 4 and had a share in the ancestral joint Hindu family properties, which had remained in the hands of late Maharaja Hanuwant Singh at the time of his death and which were included in the list of properties prepared by the Government of India. It was also argued that defendants nos. 1 and 2 were disposing of various properties of the joint Hindu family by way of sale or transfer to various trusts and joint stock companies, defendants nos. 9 to 13 which were merely collusive and benami and have been brought into existence for their benefit by the defendants Nos 1 and 2. On the other hand, Mr. L.R. Mehta, appearing for defendants nos. 1 and 2, submitted that succession to the Jodhpur State and all properties held by the Rulers of that State was governed by the rule of primogeniture for the last several centuries and the senior member of the senior line succeeded to the 'Gaddi' of Jodhpur and also to all the properties. It was also argued that no distinction was ever kept in the State of Jodhpur between the private property of the Ruler and the property of the State, as the Ruler was sovereign and any property belonging to the State was his own. It was argued that after the death of Maharaja Umaid Singh, his eldest son Maharaja Hanuwat Singh succeeded by the rule of primogeniture not only to the 'Gaddi' of the State of Jodhpur but also to all the properties of the State of Jodhpur and that he became the absolute owner of all the properties left by late Maharaja Umaidsingh. It was pointed out that Maharaja Hanuwantsingh gave certain lands for maintenance to the appellants as 'Aajivika Jagir' by the order dated February 10, 1948. He also gave burgalows to the plaintiff and other brothers were also provided with similar grants including bungalows for their residence. It was submitted by Mr. Mehta that the list of private properties were settled and accepted by agreement between the Union of India and Maharaja Hanuwant Singh and the Union of India recognised the right of the Maharaja to such private properties, irrespective of the fact as to whether they were constructed or purchased out of the State funds. But the Maharaja Hanuwant Singh was recognised by the Union of India as the absolute owner of the properties included in the list of private properties and the appellants had no right, title or interest in any of the properties mentioned in the said list of private properties, a copy of which has been appended to the plaint as Schedule I.;