M NARAHARI REDDY Vs. M CHANNAKESAVAREDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are brothers and sons of one Narasimhareddy filed a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, to appoint a commissioner to seize all the accounts and properties of the business in flowers at premises bearing No. 5-2-71/1, Jambagh, Hyderabad and also to appoint the petitioners as Receivers to carry on business at the above mentioned premises and to pass such other orders as the court may deem fit.

(2.) It was alleged in the petition that their uncle who had an half share in the business is a member of their joint family and he with an evil intention of putting the petitioners to loss on their father's death is not maintaining proper accounts and has been eating away all profits arising out of the joint business without giving them their half share. They also alleged that they apprehend that the respondent would tamper with the accounts of the business and that the continuance of the respondent in the business would cause danger to their interests. As the Civil Courts were closed for the vacation, they contend that the only course open to them was to file a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. Along with that petition they also filed CMP. No. 1370 of 1971 for a direction to appoint a commissioner to seal the premises and seize all accounts and properties of business and allow the petitioners to carry on business uninterruptedly; They filed yet another petition for isssuing an interim injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession and business of the petitioners.

(3.) The petition was admitted and aCommissioner was appointed as prayed for in CMP No. 1370/71 and an interim injunction was also granted on 4-5-1971. Pursuant to the said order, the commissioner appointed by this court seized certain articles found in the premises, made an inventory of some of the articles found therein and sealed the premises on 7-5-71 and submitted a report to this court along with the, keys of the premises. In the meanwhile the respondent filed a counter asserting that he was in possession of the premises.