GOVIND PARSHAD Vs. LALIT PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for partition of various movable and immovable properties. The plaintiff is the grandson of Sh. Alopi Parshad and his wife Smt. Shakuntala Devi, both of whom have expired. Sh. Alopi Parshad and Smt. Shakuntala Devi were survived by two sons namely Krishan Parshad and Rajinder Parshad. Sh. Krishan Parshad was survived by four children namely defendant No.1 Lalit Parshad, plaintiff Govind Parshad, defendant No.2 Veena Bansal and late Smt. Shashi Bala Gupta. Smt. Shashi Bala Gupta, who died on 27th October 2004, was survived by defendants No.3 to 5. Sh. Rajinder Parshad, the other son of Sh. Alopi Parshad was survived by one son namely Arun Kumar and three daughters, who are defendants No.7 to 9 in this suit. Sh. Arun Kumar has since died and was survived by defendant No.6, who is his son, his widow Smt. Satya Gupta and daughter Seema Gupta.

(2.) THE partition has been sought in respect of the following immovable properties:-

(3.) COMING to the movable properties, as far as Mercedes car valued at Rs.4 Crore by the plaintiff is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 and 10 informs, on instructions, that this car had been sold even prior to filing of the suit and the sale consideration was Rs.5,40,000/-. Regarding the movable properties mentioned at serial No.1 to 5 and 7 to 9, the learned counsel for the parties agree that they will maintain status quo to the extent these properties are in their possession. It is made clear that licences for holding of the swords, which are shown at serial No.9 in the list of movable assets, in terms of the compromise referred earlier, will not amount a contravention of this order so long as the swords are preserved by the person in whose name the licences are transferred. This application stands disposed of in terms of this order. This is an application by the plaintiff seeking payment of Rs.1 Crore to him during pendency of the suit. At this stage, no such order can be passed, particularly when the parties have already been directed to maintain status quo with respect to the suit properties except the property at Gwalior which prima facie belongs to defendant No.10 company and not to the HUF. The application is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the applicant does not press this application and states that all these objections can be considered by the Court while framing issues. The IA stands dismissed as not pressed. List for framing of issues on 22nd November 2011.