ASHISH NEVATIA Vs. PRABHAT KUMAR NEVATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in the suit is the applicant in the application. The suit has been filed by the first respondent herein against the applicant and 23 others, who figure as respondents 2 to 24 in the application, for the relief of partition, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaint averments, the suit properties and other properties originally belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia and his three sons, namely Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia, Srikrishna Nevatia (the father of the plaintiff/father of the first respondent) and Balakrishna Nevatia. The further case of the first respondent/plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the defendants 5 to 8 are the children of Srikrishna Nevatia and Bimla Devi. Srikrishna Nevatia, who is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8, suffered a tragic death on 09.09.1975 due to a car accident that took place at Veppur in Villupuram District while he was travelling from Rameshwaram to Chennai. Till his death he was a member of the Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia HUF. Subsequently, except the property in Haveli, Rajasthan, which was impartible, all other properties of Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia HUF were partitioned on 29.02.1980. As per the partition, the shares of the HUF held in the companies that have been arrayed as defendants 9 to 24, were allotted to the inner HUF, namely Srikrishna -Pramod Kumar Nevatia HUF. The present suit has been filed for the division of the said HUF, namely Srikrishna -Pramod Kumar Nevatia HUF, of which the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 8 are members. Plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 represent the branch of Srikrishna Nevatia and the defendants 1 to 4 represent the branch of Pramod Kumar Nevatia, who expired on 01.02.2001. As kartha of the family, Srikrishna Nevatia was entitled to collect all bonus shares and other benefits. Similarly, after the death of Srikrishna Nevatia, Pramod Kumar Nevatia, the father of the defendants 1 to 4 as kartha of their family was in receipt of the bonus shares. During the lifetime of Srikrishna Nevatia and thereafter during the lifetime of Pramod Kumar Nevatia, they used to collect such bonus shares and other benefits, encash the same and make payments to the members of the joint family. After the death of Pramod Kumar Nevatia, the first defendant (the applicant in the application), without informing the death of his father, continued to receive the above said benefits in his father's name and encashed the same as if he was alive. Investments in shares had been made in the name of the plaintiff and in the name of the father of the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and individually. But the fund for such investments came from the joint family estate. Pramod Kumar Nevatia, the father of the defendants 1 to 4 did not have any self -acquisitions. Thereafter, the 6th defendant wanted to start a business, for which Pramod Kumar Nevatia did not agree. In order to arrive at an amicable settlement Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia and Balakrishna Nevatia were appointed as arbitrators. They passed an interim award on 01.02.1985 and a final award on 28.02.1994. But, Pramod Kumar Nevatia, the father of the defendants 1 to 4 and the 6th defendant had disputes over the same, pursuant to which proceedings were dragged to the court in O.P.No.95/1995 and O.P.No.865/1997. As no partition was effected, Pramod Kumar Nevatia, the father of the defendants 1 to 4 filed a suit for partition on the file of this court in C.S.NO.354/1986. Subsequently, the same was transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and re -numbered as O.S.NO.15523/1996. The said suit was subsequently dismissed for default in 2006. Similarly, the 6th defendant initiated proceedings before this court in C.S.No.603/1987 for partition, but the same was withdrawn in order to proceed with the arbitration proceedings. However, the award passed by the arbitrators was set aside by the court and the same was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench in O.S.A.No.239/2001 and O.S.No.264/2001. The 6th defendant, thereafter informed that he had decided not to proceed further with the arbitration proceedings and he intended to effect a compromise with the first defendant alone. As such, the defendants 2 to 4 on the one hand and the 6th defendant on the other hand were at logger heads. Because of the same, the plaintiff has to approach the court with the present suit for partition. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit properties.

(3.) THE first defendant Ashish Nevatia alone has come forward with the present application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for the rejection of the plaint on the following grounds: -