BALDEV SINGH MAN Vs. BAHADUR SINGH MAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30-03-2010, passed by II Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar, in O.S. No. 136 of 2008, Baldev Singh Man and others versus Bahadur Singh Man and others, whereby the application of plaintiffs/appellants for appointment of receiver has been rejected. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff/appellant Baldev Singh Man and defendant/respondent Bahadur Singh Man were real brother. Defendant/respondent Ajit Singh is the father of Baldev Singh and Bahadur Singh. Plaintiffs/appellants 2 to 5 are sisters of Baldev Singh Man and Bahadur Singh. During the pendency of appeal, Bahadur Singh Man had died and in place of him his widow Smt. Sharanjeet Kaur was impleaded as respondent. The other respondents Pradeep Man and Navdeep Man are sons of late Sri Bahadur Singh Man.

(2.) According to plaintiffs/appellants, their mother Smt. Gurudayal Kaur purchased the disputed land vide lease deed dated 3-5-1976. After purchase of property Smt. Gurudayal Kaur with the help of plaintiffs/appellants got constructed a building on the said land, which is called 'Gurudayal Niwas' and on the said building hotel business is going on. Because plaintiff Baldev Singh Man used to reside outside India and other plaintiffs are sisters, therefore, the hotel business was being looked after by the defendants. The defendants gave accounts of hotel upto the year 2005 and thereafter they were not rendering accounts of the hotel to the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 2 Ajeet Singh, father of plaintiff Baldev Singh and defendant Bahadur Singh, in order to grab the share of plaintiffs, got executed a sale-deed dated 27-12-2007 through which the ownership of property was given in favour of defendants 3 and 4 (sons of defendant Bahadur Singh), whereas Ajeet Singh had no right to execute the sale deed. After the death of Gurudayal Kaur, the plaintiffs had 5/7 share in the disputed property. Smt. Gurudayal Kaur also did not execute any will in favour of defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition to get 5/7 share as well as to give accounts of the income from the disputed property.

(3.) Along with the suit the plaintiffs also filed an application 30-C under Order 40 Rule- 1 C.P.C. for appointment of receiver and prayed that the accounts of disputed property be filed in the court. The defendants filed objection 35-C and alleged that the total area of disputed property is 1800 square feet, in which defendant Ajeet Singh Man and Smt. Gurudayal Kaur were owner of the property in equal share. Defendant Ajeet Singh got constructed house in half portion of land and he is owner in possession of that property. Smt. Gurudayal Kaur in her life time on 25-6-1990 had handed over her half share to Ajeet Singh by will-deed. Hence after the death of Gurudayal Kaur, Ajeet Singh had got exclusive ownership of the total property in dispute. It is also alleged by the defendants that plaintiff Baldev Singh son of Ajeet Singh for the last about 20 years is living in Canada along with his family and he has no concern with the disputed property. On 27.12.2007 Ajeet Singh sold the half share of hotel Man to defendant Pradeep Man and Navdeep Man. Hence there is no question of appointment of receiver in respect of property in dispute.