RAJ NATH Vs. VIJAY NATH
LAWS(DLH)-1972-9-10
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 21,1972

RAJ NATH Appellant
VERSUS
VIJAY NATH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MAHANT BALDEO DASS VS. MALIK DHAREM CHAND [REFERRED]
KUTOOR VENGAYIL RAYARAPPAN NAYANAR VS. KUTOOR VENGAYIL VALIA MADHAVIAMMA AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
MAHANTH RAM DAS VS. GANGA DAS [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

A I SINGH VS. SQUASH RACKETS FEDERATION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2008-11-40] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

AVADH BEHARI, J - (1.)This is a first appeal from the order of a learned single Judge dated May 26, 1972, refusing to extend the time on the application of the appellant (I.A. I of 1972 dated January 3, 1972 which was made under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the court. The material facts so far as they are relevant for the decision of this appeal are as follows :-
One Musadi Lal had five sons, namely, Shiv Charan Lal, Lakshmi Narain, Dina Nath, Raj Nath and Vijay Nath. He constituted a joint Hindu family with his sons and carried on business under the name and style 'Premsukhdass Jawaharlal'. He died in 1942. In 1949 his sons who continued the business of the joint Hindu family firm converted the same into partnership. At that time three elder sons became partners and the appellant and the respondent who were then minors were admitted to the benefit of the partnership. A new deed of partnership dated March 19, 1950 was executed in which the appellant became a partner in addition to his three elder brothers. In 1954 another deed of partnership was executed in which Vijay Nath, the respondent, became a partner. Subsequently, a new partnership deed was executed on December 20, 1957 which was modified by another deed dated October 22, 1965.

(2.)The respondent filed a suit for dissolution of the partnership firm known as 'Premsukhdass Jawahar Lal' and rendition of accounts on August 20, 1969. On the game day an application (IA 1350 of 1969) was made by the respondent under order,40 Rule 1 and other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a receiver and other reliefs. This application was decided by B.C. Misra, J. on February 18, 1971. B.C. Misra, J appointed the official receiver as interim receiver of the partnership firm and ordered him to take into his possession all the movable and immovable properties of the firm subject to a number of conditions. We are concerned only with one of the conditions which is as follows :-
"(1) He will not disturb the physical possession of defendant No.1 from the shop in dispute and from the stock in trade with him provided he furnishes a Bank guarantee or other adequate security For a sum of Rs. 80,000.00 within one month from the date to obey the decree of the Court and in pursuance thereof, in particular, to vacate the shop or to pay such compensation for use of the shop and the stock-in-trade and others, as may be directed. In his default, the Receiver would take possession of the shop and give it to the plaintiff on his furnishing a Bank guarantee or other adequate security in the sum of Rs. 80,000 to be furnished within one month thereafter, and in the event of his default also, the Receiver will lock up and seal the premises and apply to the Court for directions."

(3.)This part of the order relates to half portion of shop No. 4912 situated at Hauz Qazi, Delhi, which is in the possession of the appellant. The suit is still pending. This order is to remain effective till the decision of the suit. In terms of the order dated February 18, 1971 of B.C. Misra, J., the appellant furnished security of his immovable property situated in Kamla Nagar. Delhi. When the matter came up before the Registrar for the acceptance of the security, objections were raised by the respondent. The Registrar by his order dated April 23, 1971 rejected the security. Against this order of rejection of the security by the Registrar, an appeal was taken to the Judge in chambers and by order dated September, 21, 1971, Prakash Narain, J. held. firstly, that no appeal lay against the order of the Registrar and that, secondly, the immovable property of the joint Hindu family cannot be given in security. In the result the appeal was dismissed, it may be mentioned at this stage that the immovable property security of which was furnished by the appellant came to his share on a partition of the joint family property and, therefore, this immovable property belonged to the appellant and his two minor sons.


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