CHANDER KISHORE GUSHORE GULATI Vs. VARINDER KISHORE GULATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been moved by the Plaintiff under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short Criminal Procedure Code) for directions. The Plaintiff has filed a suit for partition against the Defendants related to properties situated at Delhi, Jammu and Mumbai. The properties were claimed to be HUF properties by the Plaintiff Initially, the suit was filed in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir where an objection was taken by the Defendants regarding the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. A Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir held that High Court at Jammu and Kashmir has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit with respect to the properties situated at Delhi and Mumbai. Against that, a letters Patent Appeal was filed and the Division Bench of the said High Court accepted the appeal of the Plaintiff. Against that order, the Defendants filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where Defendants 1 to 5 made a statement that they did not want to claim any title or ownership over the items of the properties which were situated in Jammu with reference to the alleged corporate settlement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also clarified while disposing of the Special Leave Petition vide their orders dated 2 7/04/1995, that, the statement of the Defendants would not stop the Plaintiffs from contending in any proceedings that the suit properties were joint family properties. The plaint was returned for being presented to the proper court and thus the same was presented before this Court.

(2.) During the pendency of the proceedings before this Court, the Defendants had moved an application under Section 12 of the Court Fee Act to which the Plaintiff had filed a reply and the Defendants filed rejoinder thereto. It was in that rejoinder that the Defendants stated that "Sandeep Building" at Mumbai which was one of the properties shown in the plaint as HUF property, had been sold. The Plaintiff on coming to know this fact through the rejoinder of the Defendants filed the present application seeking directions with respect to the sale of "Sandeep Building" situated at Mumbai during the pendency of the suit. The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendants could not have alienated the property "Sandeep Building" one of the joint family properties during the pendency of the suit and since the property has been disposed of they cannot be allowed to appropriate the proceeds thereof.

(3.) The Plaintiff in this respect has prayed that the Defendants be directed to disclose the name of the purchaser of "Sandeep Building" at Mumbai, the date of the alleged sale deed and the amount of sale consideration received and to furnish all the documents executed between the Defendants and the Vendee in respect of the sale of the said building at Mumbai. In addition to that, the Plaintiff has also prayed that the Defendants be directed to deposit the sale proceeds of the said building in this Court.