ANIL ANEJA Vs. RAJIV KUMAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant Anil Aneja to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 04.07.2016 of learned Addl. District Judge in RCA No.10/2015 whereby findings of the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 21.01.2015 in Suit No.87/2014 dismissing it under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were endorsed. The appeal is contested by the respondents.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The appellant had filed a suit for declaration, permanent, mandatory injunction as well as for specific performance.

(3.) Briefly stated, the case of the appellant in the plaint was that his father Bal Kishan Dass had started a business of wholesale and trading of textile in the cloth market at Fateh Puri as HUF business in which the appellant and respondents No.1 & 2 were coparceners. The said HUF owned two immovable properties in plot No.1351 and 1355 in East Rohtas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and another plot measuring 200 sq.yd. located in Khasra No.370 of Mauza Siqdarpur Delhi (presently East Rohtas Nagar). It is stated that various properties detailed in the plaint were acquired from the funds and the income of the joint family business being carried out in the name and style of "M/s.Bal Kishan Sohan Lal". Two other joint family business by the name and style of "M/s.Aneja Sarees" and "M/s.Rangoli Creations" were also started in 1993 and 2002 respectively. It is stated that on the mutually understanding and assurance given by respondents No.1 and 2 to render complete accounts of the firm, the businesses of the firm "M/s. Aneja Sarees" and "M/s.Rangoli Creation" were agreed to be managed by respondents No.1 and 2 respectively. It is further stated in the plaint that due to restrictions contained in the terms of DDA, properties as mentioned in the plaint were purchased in the name of different family members.