MADHUR PODDAR Vs. ASHOK PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid Motion has been taken out by the plaintiff, above named for appointment of Receiver over and in respect of the joint family properties more specifically described in annexure-B' to the plaint with a direction upon the said Receiver to take symbolic possession of the same and also order of injunction restraining the respondents more specifically respondents Nos. 20 to 31 including their agents, servants and/or assignees in any wayencumbering, alienating, disposing or selling joint family property more specifically stated in annexure B' to the plaint. The aforesaid application has been taken out in connection with the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming declaration that the deed of family settlement and partition dated 15th July, 1989 is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff; partition of the joint family properties belonging to the partias herein as recorded in the deed of family settlement setting aside of the partition of the joint family property and also for other consequential reliefs. Sum and substance of the case made out in the plaint is that the deed of family arrangement and partition dated 15th July, 1989 is not binding upon the plaintiff as at that point of time he was minor and he was represented by his father being the natural guardian and his interest at that point of time was not sufficiently protected and/or safeguarded. The property is valuable, yet share of the plaintiff was valued at an abnormally low price. After filing of the said suit the petitioner made interlocutory application claiming for almost similar relief as claimed herein. On 23rd June, 1998 the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose was pleased to pass an order of injunction restraining the respondents and more particularly respondents No. 20 to 31, their respective servants, agents and/or assignees from giving effect to and/or taking any step or further step in terms of and pursuant to deed of family arrangement and partition dated 15th July, 1989. The said application was finally disposed of by confirming the said first order dated 23rd July, 1998 by passing an order on 16th December, 1998 read with a connecting order dated 24th December, 1998 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sujit Sinha. (as His Lordship then was). The said orders were and still are subsisting.

(2.) In this application it is alleged that in breach of the aforesaid orders, respondent Nos. 20 to 31 are now trying to sell, alienate, encumber premises No. 3/1, Krishna Behari Sen Street, Kolkata- 700073 and lands situated at Bissu, District - Churu, Rajasthan which stand in the name of Rajasthan Insulators & Industries Private Limited. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order of injunction is not sufficient to safeguard his interest in the joint family properties, so Receiver should be appointed.

(3.) The defendants No. 20 to 31 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition to pass this application contending that in terms of the said family settlement and/or of partition of parties have acted upon. All arrangements have been made for implementation of the same indeed substantially implemented. Only the group of Durga Prosad Poddar to which the petitioner belongs have failed and neglected to implement the said family arrangement despite having received benefit thereunder. For this reason his clients have already filed a suit in this Court being No. 58 of 1997 for getting vacant and peaceful possession of the second floor and the portion of the ground floor of premises No. 3/1, Krishna Bihari Sen Street, Kolkata and also for other reliefs. The present suit has been filed as a counter-blast to the earlier suit so that the deed of partition can be frustrated and for this purpose the plaintiff has been set up the same. Other various facts have been disclosed in the affidavit and in my view those facts are not relevant for deciding the issues involved in the present application. The learned counsel, in support of the petitioner, submits that the Court's order of injunction has to be implemented by all forces. The defendants and each of them are bent upon to disobey order of injunction by their act and conduct. To protect and preserve order of injunction there cannot be any alternative method other than to appoint Receiver. The learned counsel for other defendants except the defendants Nos. 20 to 31 have supported the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.