RAMNIK VALLABHDAS MADHVANI Vs. TARABEN PRAVINLAL MADHVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . These appeals arise from a suit filed by respondent in the court of Subordinate Judge at Ootacamund, State of Tamil Nadu on 28th October, 1972. The parties to the suit are closely related. Respondent Taraben is the widow of Pravinlal Madhvani while Santokben, original defendant No. 1, was the widow of Vallabhdas Madhvani real brother of Pravinlal Madhvani. Santokben died during the pendency of the litigation. Her three sons who were defendants No. 2 (Ramnik), No. 3 (Praful) and No. 4 (Rajnikant) in the suit, were appellants in these appeals. Appellants Santokben and her son Praful died during pendency of the appeals. Necessary steps regarding substitution have been taken. Appellant No. 4 M/s. Bengorm Nilgiri Plantations Co. is a partnership firm.

(2.) . The family owned a tea estate in the Neelgiris area. It was known as Bengorm Tea Estate. It was a co-ownership property of the members of the family. A partnership firm was constituted under the name and style of Bengorm Tea Plantations to manage the tea estate. The partnership did not have any proprietory interest in the estate. The shares of the parties in the tea estate as well as in the partnership firm are not in dispute. Pravinlal died on 4th May, 1969. He left behind a will. Taraben respondent No. 1 claiming to be sole executor of the estate of her husband Pravinlal filed the present suit claiming the following reliefs:

(3.) . On the question of interest, the High Court has in Para 42 of the impugned judgment noted that it was wrong on the part of the High Court while passing the preliminary decree vide judgment dated 16th December, 1985 to award interest as per the rate of interest charged by nationalised banks on commercial transactions from time to time. It was also felt that the High Court ought not to have proceeded on the basis of amended Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Yet the High Court did not interfere with award of interest only for the reason that the Special Leave Petition against the preliminary decree had been dismissed by this Court. The appellants who were defendants in the suit have filed the present appeals against the judgment dated 23rd September, 1993 of the High Court. During the hearing the learned counsel for appellants raised three points for decision of this Court in these appeals :