SHRI MAHENDRASINGH; SMT MAHARANI SUSHILA KUMARI; SHRI ARVIND SINGH; LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF MAHARANA BHAGWAT SINGH; ARVIND SINGH Vs. SHRI ARVIND SINGH & ORS; SHRI ARVIND SINGH & ORS; SHRI MAHENDRASINGH; RAJMATA SMT SUSHILA KUMARI & OTHERS; M K MAHENDRASINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There three Appeals bearing No. 82/86, 83/86 and 84/86 are directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Udaipur dated 2.12.1985. The main grievance of Shri Arvindsingh is that the learned trial court has wrongly granted injunction against defendant No. 4. Similarly, Appeal No. 179/86 and 184/86 arising out of the order of the learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Udaipur dated 1.8.86 are filed by the plaintiffs Mahendrasingh and Maharani Smt. Sushila Kumari. The plaintiff Shri Mahendrasingh also filed cross-objections in Appeal No. 84/86. The main grievance of Shri Mahendrasingh and Maharani Smt. Sushila is that the learned courts-below have wrongly refused the prayer for appointment of Receiver in respect of the suit-properties. All these five appeals and doss-objections arising out of the partition Suit No. 83/83 are involved inter-connected issues, hence, for the sake of convenience, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Necessary facts to be noticed, in short, are that on 22.4.1983, the plaintiff Shri Mahendrasingh a natural born son of Late Maharana Bhagwatsingh, filed a suit for partition and rendition of accounts in the court of District Judge. Udaipur against

(3.) The main allegations of the plaintiff in the suit are that the last holder of the rulership of sovereign of Mewar Estate was late Maharana Bhopal Singh. On 18.4.48, he signed the instrument of accession in favour of the Government of India and, thereafter, new Constitution of India came into force and the then Maharana Bhopalsingh had become ordinary citizen. Maharana Bhopalsingh expired on 4.7.55. Thereafter, Maharana Bhagwatsingh succeeded the 'Gaddi' but his succession was just as of ordinary properties, as no rulership remains after independence. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 Maharana Bhagwatsingh was the 'Karta' of HUF and he managed the entire property in his hand as Karta of HUF. The plaintiff being a co-parcener of the said HUF entitled for partition of HUF property enumerated in Annexure A and B attached to the plaint. It is further alleged that defendant No. 1 Maharana Bhagwatsingh has alienated some HUF properties without need and necessity. Maharana Bhagwatsingh has transferred the HUF properties in breach of faith and his duty as Karta of HUF. There is gross mis-management and dissipation of large portion of the property of HUE Not only immovable properties but even movable properties are being mis-used by defendant No. 1, therefore, the HUF properties be partitioned by meets and bounds to protect the interest of the plaintiff in the HUF properties.