SHANTADEVI P GAEKWAD Vs. SANGRAMSINH P GAEKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A battle royal, in the true sense of the word, if without bloodshed, has vehemently been fought in this Court. Weapons of warfare have been books, documents and oral arguments. The battleline was drawn between one son of the Royal Family of Gaekwad on the one side and his mother and his elder brother on the other. The earlier venue was the Court of the Civil Judge (S.D.) at Vadodara. The cause of the fight has been partition of the properties left behind by the former Ruler of Baroda by the name of Maharaja Fatesinjirao Gaekwad.

(2.) The Appeal from Order has arisen from the order passed by the learned Trial Judge on 7th August 1992 below the application at Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No. 725 of 1991. The revisional application is directed against the order passed by the same learned Trial Judge on the same day below the application at Exhibit-6 in the very Special Suit. By his order below the application at Exhibit-5, the learned Trial Judge has granted a sort of injunction directing the appellants in this appeal to maintain status quo till the suit in question is heard and finally disposed of with respect to the properties, both movable and immovable, shown in the schedule in the light of paragraph 21 of the plaint. Thereunder the appellants herein were further directed to maintain separate accounts for the properties involved in the litigation, and also of all the income and incidental expenses from the date of the suit till its final disposal. The remaining part of the order is not very material for the purpose of the appeal. So far as the order below the application at Exhibit-6 is concerned, the application of the revisional petitioner for inventory by appointment of a Commissioner under Order 20 (sic. 26) Rule 9 read with Order 39, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (the Code for brief) has come to be rejected by the aforesaid order passed on 7th August 1992. The order below the application at Exhibit-5 has aggrieved the original defendants and they have therefore preferred this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Act against the said order. So far as the order below the application at Exhibit-6 is concerned, the original plaintiff is aggrieved thereby and he has therefore invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code. Since common questions of fact and law arc found arising in both these matters, I have thought it fit to dispose of both these matters by this common judgment of mine.

(3.) -It may be mentioned that on behalf of the original plaintiff certain Paper Books have been prepared and handed over to this Court. These Paper Books are in six volumes. Each volume is a separate entity except Volume No. 1 which is divided in two parts as Volume No. 1A and Volume No IB.