DHRUV GOEL Vs. ANAND PARKASH GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order will dispose of four applications, namely I.A. No. 2039/2009 (seeking enhancement of the interim amount of Rs. 15,000/- directed to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs), I.A. No. 9180/2009 (by the plaintiffs, seeking compensation in view of the shops in the possession of the defendants), as well as I.A. Nos. 2657/2009 and 8468/2009, in which Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 seek a direction to the plaintiffs for accounting in respect of the use and occupation of certain properties at Asaf Ali Road, being a share in the basement.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the plaintiffs are the children and widow respectively of late Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal, who died in 1972. They claim partition of the joint family properties on the basis of their being entitled to these shares, of the said late Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal. In I.A. No. 2039/2009, a direction to the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, to pay an amount of Rs. 1,37,500/- per month in respect of what is termed as the entitlement of the plaintiffs, in respect of the undivided share in 31, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, is sought. The plaintiffs refer to certain arrangements and family settlements, between the family's larger branch to which Sh. R.S. Madhoram, the common ancestor of Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal and the defendants was a party. The said arrangements, it is stated, took place in 1964, as a consequence of which the first defendant's branch became entitled to several properties, or shares thereto. The first defendant (now deceased during the pendency of the proceedings) was the father of late Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal as well as Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the other sons. It is contended that even though the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have disputed the plaintiffs' claim for 25% of the shares in respect of the entire schedule of properties, there is a concession vis-?-vis the Sunder Nagar property, (to which the plaintiffs are entitled) as the written statements clearly concede a 24.25% share. It is submitted that the plaintiffs, in 1985, had moved an application, stating that the usufruct of Sunder Nagar property was changed then as they had been ousted from it after the death of Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal. They refer to an order of this Court, dated 29.03.1985 as recognizing their rights to receive compensation in view of their right to reside in the said properties. The third defendant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is further submitted that in a previous application, I.A. No. 1415/1996, a decree on admission in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC was sought. The alternative relief claimed was a direction to pay mesne profits or damages for the plaintiffs' admitted share at Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. It is stated that based on the authority of the Supreme Court judgment, this Court enhanced the existing rate of Rs. 3,500/- per month (directed earlier), to Rs. 15,000/- per month, as the rental value in respect of the 24.25% share, to which the plaintiffs' were entitled, and accordingly directed such payment. The order was confirmed in an appeal preferred to the Division Bench by the defendants on 31.03.1998. The plaintiffs submit that further appeal by special leave did not result in any favorable order, in that the basis of the interim order was not varied even though the quantum was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. The Supreme Court's order, dated 24.08.1998 has been placed on the record and relied on for this purpose.

(3.) It is stated that when the plaintiffs seek further variation of the order claiming that due to passage of time, the rental values had changed, necessitating a review of the compensation amounts payable by the defendants; the Supreme Court, by its order, dated 24.11.2008, granted the plaintiffs/applicants liberty to move this Court for such enhancement, observing that it would be appropriate that such exercise were carried-out by the High Court.