JAYKUMAR Vs. LAXMINARAYAN PARMESHWARLAL JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by an order dated 13 8 2001 granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff so also being aggrieved by appointment of receivers, the present appeal has been filed by some of the original defendants. The respondent no.1 Laxminarayan Jaiswal filed a suit for declaration, partition, accounts and for separate possession of his share in the suit property which includes various business activities carried on by members of the joint family. Along with the suit, the respondent no.1/plaintiff filed an application for grant of temporary injunction and also prayed for appointment of receiver insofar as the business carried on by the members of the joint family is concerned which application has been decided by the impugned order.

(2.) THE case of the respondent no.1/plaintiff before the trial Court is that the respondent nos.1, 3, 4 and the appellants nos.1 and 2 are the real brothers and the respondent no.2 is their mother. The appellant nos.3 to 5 are sons of appellant no.1 and appellant no.6 is the son of the appellant no.2. The plaintiff has pleaded that Parmeshwarlal Jaiswal , the father of the plaintiff and the defendants referred to hereinabove, was the Karta of the joint family and dispute amongst the brothers cropped up after the death of the father Parmeshwarlal Jaiswal some time in the year 1998. During the life time of the father Parmeshwarlal , various business activities were carried on in the name of members of the joint family and though the businesses happened to be carried on in the name of an individual member of the joint family, truly speaking the businesses so also the properties acquired were that of the joint family. The suit has been filed in respect of properties described in para 1 of the plaint and the properties contain house property, open plots, agricultural lands, business of liquor, sale of Moha flowers, fair price shop etc. During the life time of the father, he was managing the entire business as Karta of the family and it was only after the death of the father in the year 1998 that disputes arose between the brothers and consequent upon the same, some of them started claiming the properties which are in their respective names as their self acquired and individual property.

(3.) AS the trial Court has prima facie come to a conclusion that though the country liquor shops are being run under licence issued in the name of one of the members of the joint family, it is a joint family business and thus it has proceeded to appoint one member of the joint family, in addition to the licensee, as receivers for the purpose of maintaining the true and correct accounts of the respective businesses. Perusal of the operative order as well, would reveal that the licensee and one member of the joint family would be acting as receivers only for the purposes of maintaining true and correct accounts. The day to day business activities would be conducted and managed by the licensee in his own name. The other member of the joint family who would be acting as a receiver along with the licensee is required to supervise the accounts, so that there would be no room for any guess work in regard to the profits of the business.