MADHU MALHOTRA Vs. IQBAL AKHTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is directed against the judgment of the trial Court in a Chamber Summons taken out by the appel-lant-plaintiff No. 2 for a direction to the Court Receiver appointed in the suit to remove the obstruction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and for taking posses-sion of the assets of the suit partnership for executing the order dated 19th july, 1985 with or without the aid of the police. _________________________

(2.) IN 1968, one Kulsumbi, the original plaintiff No. 1 and her daughter tanveer, original plaintiff No. 2 and the appellant in the present appeal instituted a suit against one Mohammed Anwar, the original defendant. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they were the heirs of one Gulam Hussein Bhatti, plaintiff No. 1 being his wife and plaintiff No. 2 being their daughter, who was a partner in the business known as Picnic Lodge. The partnership firm consisted of Gulam Hussein Bhatti who died on 7-1-1966 and Mohammed Anwar. After the death of Gulam Hussein Bhatti, the partnership was dissolved and the plaintiffs filed a suit for accounts of the partnership concern. This suit was numbered as S. C. Suit No. 2592 of 1968. During the pendency of the suit the original defendant died and therefore defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were, brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives. The suit was de-creed. The trial Court found that the original plaintiff No. 1, that is, Kulsumbi was the wife of Gulam Hussein Bhatti and the original plaintiff No. 2 was their daughter. The Court decreed that the plaintiffs and the defendants were each entitled to 11/2 share of the suit partnership. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were ordered to render accounts of the partnership and certain other consequential orders were passed on 30-4-1985. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order, First Appeal No. 289 of 1985 was preferred by the defendants. The first appeal was dismissed and the Letters Patent Appeal preferred also came to be dismissed. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the first Appeal as well as the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal confirmed the finding of fact of the trial Court that the plaintiffs were the heirs of Gulam Hussein Bhatti. The Division Bench, while confirming the findings of fact of the trial Court and dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal, substituted the order of the trial Court as it contained some infirmities. Decree was to be drawn up accordingly.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, one Mehrunnissa claiming to be the wife of Gulam hussein Bhatti filed an affidavit on behalf of the defendants avering that she was one of the partners in the suit business and that she has been admitted into the partnership after the death of Gulam Hussein Bhatti. While passing the decree, the trial Court held that Mehrunnissa was not the wife of Gulam hussein Bhatti.