REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SANJAY KAUSHISH Appellant

V/S

D.C.KAUSHISH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PETHERPERMAL CHETTY V. MUNIANDY SERVAI [REFERRED]
SANT BHUSHAN LAL V. BRIJ BHUSHAN LAL AND OTHERS [REFERRED 32.]
NITHAYYA THEVAR V. SUBRAMANIAN AMBALAKARAR [REFERRED 28.]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-II,AHMEDABAD V. ARVIND NAROTTAM [REFERRED 25.]
MOHAMMED ISMAIL V. THE DISTRICT JUDGE,BIJNOR AND OTHERS [REFERRED . 8.]
SUDHINDRA COOMAR V. MONMOHINI COOMAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED . 9.]
MA MOVS. V. MA SET [REFERRED 52.]
BALASUNDARA PANDIAM PILLAI V. AUTHIMULAM CHETTIAR [REFERRED 54.]
ASARAM AND OTHERS V. LUDHESHWAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED 46.]
FARIDUDDIN AHMAD V. MURTAZA ALI KHAN AND OTHERS [REFERRED 47.]
APPANNA V. JAMI VENKATAPPADU AND OTHERS [REFERRED 40.]
BISHUNDEO NARAIN AND ANOTHER V. SEOGENI RAI AND JAGERNATH [REFERRED 41.]
MST. BASANT KAUR V. RAM SINGH [REFERRED 45.]
MATURI PULLAIAH AND ANOTHER V. MALURI NARASIMHAM AND OTHERS. [REFERRED 33.]
DHONDIRAM AND ANOTHER V. BHAQUBAI AND ANOTHER [REFERRED 38.]
RUKHMABAI VS. LALA LAXMINARAYAN [REFERRED 37.]
JAWAHAR LAL BARMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED 36.]
KALWA DEVADATTAM KALWA DEVADATTAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED 35.]
RAM CHARAN DAS VS. GIRIJA NANDINI DEVI [REFERRED 34.]
VEMAREDDI RAMARAGHAVA REDDY VS. KONDURU SESHU REDDY [REFERRED 31.]
MUDI GOWDA GOWDAPPA SANKH VS. RAM CHANDRA RAVAGOWUA SANKH [REFERRED 30.]
SYED SHAH GHULAM GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN VS. SYED SHAH AHMED MOHIUDDIN KAMISUL QUADRI DIED [REFERRED 27.]
HARDWARI LAL VS. KANWAL SINGH [REFERRED 26.]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. DURGA CHAND KAUSHISH [REFERRED 23.]
SUPREME GENERAL FILMS EXCHANGE LIMITED SUPREME GENERAL FILMS EXCHANGE LIMITED VS. HIS HIGHNESS MAHARAJA SIR BRIJNATH SINGHJI DEO OF MAIHAR:HER HIGHNESS TEJ SURYAWANSHIJI [REFERRED 22.]
UDHAV SINGH VS. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA [REFERRED 21.]
MODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. LADHA RAM AND CO [REFERRED 14.]
PANDIT CHAND VS. PANDIT OM PRAKASH [REFERRED 17.]
T ARIVANDANDAM VS. T V SATYAPAL [REFERRED 15.]
SYED ASADULLAH KAZMI VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED 12.]
MCDOWELL AND COMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [REFERRED . 6.]
SUNIL SIDDHARTHBHAI KARTIKEYS V SARABHAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD GUJARAT:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED . 7.]
AZHAR HUSAIN VS. RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED 5.]
DHARTIPAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL VS. RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED 3.]
ORIENT TRANSPORT CO GULABRA VS. JAVA BHARAT CREDIT AND INVEST MENT COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED 4.]
PATASIBAI VS. RATANLAL [REFERRED 2.]
VEDPRAKASH VS. RAM NARIAN GOEL [REFERRED 20.]
KAILASHPATI SINGHANIA VS. RAM GOPAL GUPTA [REFERRED 24.]
VINEET KUMAR VS. BHAGWANDEI [REFERRED 19.]
DALIM KUMAR SAIN VS. NANDARANI DASSI [REFERRED . AIR 29. 29.]
SYED RASOOL VS. MOHAMMAD MOULANA [REFERRED 16.]
A RAKKIYANA GOUNDER VS. CHINNU GOUNDAN [REFERRED 39.]
SUKUMAR GHOSH VS. TULSI CHARAN GHOSH [REFERRED 13.]
BHAGWAN DAS VS. GOSWAMI BRIJESH KUMARJI [REFERRED . 10.]
B DALLU SINGH VS. BCHHAKAN SINGH [REFERRED 50.]
MT AISHA BEGAM VS. MTKUNDAN JAN [REFERRED 42.]
KALU RAM VS. BABU LAL [REFERRED 49.]
MERLA RAMANNA VS. CHELIKANI JAGANNADHA RAO [REFERRED 43.]
NARSAGAUDA SAVANTGAUDA PATIL VS. CHAWAGAUDA ADGAUDA PATIL [REFERRED 53.]
MATHURA SINGH VS. RAMA RUDRA PRASHAD SINHA [REFERRED 48.]
JAMILENNESSA KHATUN VS. IJJATENNESSA KHATUN [REFERRED 51.]
BULAKRAM VS. GANGA BISHUN CHAUDHURI [REFERRED 44.]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order I shall decide the aforesaid two applications moved by the defendants seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Elaborate oral arguments have been addressed by Counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the applicants had addressed very brief oral arguments, however, both the parties have filed written arguments. I have gone through them thoroughly.

(2.) Facts of the case as averred by the plaintiff, in brief, are that his late grandfather Pt. Lakshmi Chandra constituted a Joint Hindu Family with his two sons, namely, Pratap Chand and D.C. Kaushish-defendant No. I and owned and possessed moveable and immoveable properties. The immoveable properties are described in Schedule A to the plaint. Pratap Chand is stated to have died issueless. Pt. Lakshmi Chand -had died on February, 10,1934. D.C. Kaushish-defendant No. I then became Karta of the Joint Hindu Undivided Family comprising of himself, his wife defendant No. 4, and his three sons, namely, Ajay Kaushish-defendant No. 2 and Uday Kaushish- defendant No. 3 and the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. I as Karta of Hindu Undivided Family (for short the 'HUF') managed and possessed the HUF properties together with all acquisitions thereof and in the year 1958 a Cinema Building was constructed on the HUF plot which stood in the name of defendant No. I and by 1961 the Cinema Building was completed and business of exhibiting the films in the said Cinema commenced and certain other blocks known as 'Warehouse Block' and other constructions were also raised on the said plot in the year 1962 and there was some construction which pre-existed on the said plot and plan of the said plot with its buildings has been filed alongwith the plaint.

(3.) It is further averred that in the year 1947 defendant No. I as Karta of HUF had brought into existence a private limited company under the name and style of M/s. Asian Art Printers (P) Ltd. with the capital and funds of the HUF and in 1956 only defendant No. 4 and defendant No. I were the directors of the said company and prior to it one close friend of defendant No. I Dr. Surendra Singh was taken as Director having been given a token one share of Rs. 10.00 in the said company. The said company carried on the business of printing from the ground floor of the Press Block in the same building. Till 1971 defendant No. I and defendant No. 4 continued to be only shareholders in the said company although in reality the said company was the asset of the HUF.

Click here to view full judgment.

SANJAY KAUSHISH Vs. D C KAUSHISH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address