INDIRA TRANSPORT Vs. RATTAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a receiver appointed in execution of a decree for partition of joint Hindu family property can be aided by the Court to remove persons not parties to the suit from possession over the property is the question arising for decision in this appeal.

(2.) The appellants are 12 in number. None was a party to the suit. Dr Rattan Lal Mandlaus, the respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for partition of joint Hindu family property against 9 defendants including one Smt Uma Devi. The plaintiff had claimed one-half share of property and had sought for its partition by metes and bounds separating, it from the other one-half which was the entitlement of all the defendants jointly. On 14.2.84, all the parties to the suit filed a compromise petition which was accepted by the Court and decree in terms thereof was directed to be passed. One of the properties in the suit consisted of 20 shod of varied sizes and land measuring 7389 sq yds. situated at 438/49A in revenue estate of Jhilmil Tahirpur Ms 6 Delhi Shahdara Road Delhi, According to the compromise, this property was agreed to be shared between the plaintiffs wife Smt Neera (who was not a party to the suit and Smt Uma Devi defendant No. 6 in the ratio of one-third and two-third respectively. The defendants 1 to 5 agreed to remove themselves from the joint possession of this property. They also undertook that Sh Matu Ram or any other person in its occupation would vacate the property within one week and they would hand over possession of the same lo the plaintiffs wife and defendant No. 6. respectively within the same period. There was some litigation pending about the property which was agreed to vest in future in the plaintiffs wife and Smt Uma Devi in the ratio of one-third and two third respectively . The said 'Matu Ram or any other person in occupation of the property was also neither a party to the suit nor a signatory to the compromise.

(3.) Though the suit was disposed of the proceedings were revived on some miscellaneous applications seeking issuance of injunction, appointment of commission, etc. On 31.7.91, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 40 rule I Civil Procedure Code submitting that Uma Devi the then defendant No. 6 had died and her share in the suit property has devolved on Smt Anita Gupta. It was alleged that defendants 1 to 5 who had undertaken to remove themselves from possession of the property also to remove Matu Ram or any other person in occupation of the property, vacate the same and deliver possession to the plaintiffs wife and defendant No. 6 had failed to honour their under- taking. In this background the plaintiff sought for himself being appointed a receiver so as to be able to seek police assistance for executing the decree.