LAWS(CAL)-2019-7-190

GHANSHYAM SARDA Vs. SRI GOVIND KUMAR SARDA

Decided On July 11, 2019
Ghanshyam Sarda Appellant
V/S
Sri Govind Kumar Sarda Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Records would reveal that an application being GA No. 2460 of 2017 was preferred by the plaintiff seeking addition of two companies, namely, Kurina Real Estate Private Limited (in short "Kurina") and Skyscrappers Jute and Mining Private Limited (in short "Skyscrappers") as party defendants to the suit and for grant of leave to amend the plaint. By an order dated 27th November, 2017 leave was granted to amend the plaint and Kurina and Skyscrappers were also added as party defendants and it was also directed that the added defendants will not deal with the properties in any manner whatsoever till first week after the adjourned date. Aggrieved by the said order, appeals were preferred by Kurina and Skyscrappers. Both the appeals and the connected applications were disposed of by an order dated 22nd December, 2017 with liberty to the appellants to urge before the trial Court that they were not necessary parties and it was also observed that it would be open to the appellants to contend that the order of injunction restraining them from dealing with the relevant property ought to be discontinued. Subsequent thereto, an order was passed in GA No. 2460 of 2017 on 10th May, 2018, reviving and extending the interim order, which expired on 28th February, 2018, to run till 29th June, 2018. Aggrieved by the said order, again two appeals were preferred by Kurina and Skyscrappers. The said appeal and the connected applications were disposed of by an order dated 11th June, 2018 leaving the parties to urge whatever grounds that may be available to them in course of hearing. Thereafter on 1st August, 2018, Kurina and Skyscrappers preferred two applications being GA No. 118 of 2018 and GA No. 119 of 2018 respectively primarily praying for deletion of their names from the array of parties in the suit being CS No. 278 of 2015.

(2.) Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appearing for the plaintiff/applicant in GA No. 2460 of 2017 submits that the partition suit is between three brothers pertaining to several joint family properties. Placing reliance upon a judgment dated 8th March, 2011 passed by the Division bench of High Court at Delhi in WP (C) No. 2839 of 2010 (J.K.Jute Mills Company Limited Versus Ghanshyam Sardar & Ors.), he submits that the Court was on notice of the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in relation to their properties and interests held by themselves and through their several closely held companies. It, thus, cannot be disputed that the defendant no. 79 is one such closely held company, having properties which form the subject matter of the suit.

(3.) He submits that the properties situated at Gulabbagh, Purnia standing in the name of the defendant no. 79, which were purported to have been transferred in favour of JKJM Housing Private Limited being the defendant no. 122 by way of fraudulent allotment of shares, has been transferred in favour of Kurina by deeds of conveyance dated 5th May, 2017 and 8th May, 2017. The defendant no. 79 also executed a deed of lease pertaining to a jute mill situated at Kanpur in favour of a Skyscrappers on 9th March, 2017. By the said sham transactions certain properties have been transferred in favour of Kurina and Skyscrappers and as such their presence is necessary for adjudication of the lis. In support of such contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in case of Sahadeb Kundu & Anr. Vs. Jogesh Shekhar Mukhopadhyay & Ors. reported in (1993) 2 CHN 408.