ARVIND NARANIA Vs. SAILESH MANSATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt case is filed by the petitioner against Mr.S.P.Venugopal-respondent seeking to punish him for not complying with the order dtd. 22/2/2017 passed in E.P.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

(2.) This Court by its order dtd. 13/9/2019 in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in C.C.No.1603 of 2018 the name of the respondent is substituted as Mr.Sailesh Mansata and his address particulars were also incorporated.

(3.) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit. He filed O.S.No.797 of 2016 on the file of the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against M/s.Karvy Computers Private Limited and sought for a direction against the defendant to furnish the copies of the transfer deed and copies of share certificates pertaining to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff in the suit is the son of Late Kishorilal Narania and his mother is Late Yashoda Bai Narania. The plaintiff would state that his father during his life time purchased shares of different companies in his name and also in the name of his wife especially Reliance Industries Limited. After the death of his parents, some of the shares were transferred in the name of the plaintiff and his brother Arun Kumar Narania by producing succession certificate. His father died on 30/8/2000 and mother died on 24/3/1998. The plaintiff would also stated that in the last week of November, 2015 while he was searching old documents of his father, he came to know that few shares were transferred in the name of his brother on 28/1/2000 without obtaining any succession certificate and without his knowledge and the said shares were in the joint name of his parents. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the defendant company to furnish the details and also to furnish copies of the transferred deeds for confirmation. The defendant informed to the plaintiff that the aforesaid transfer deed was signed by Smt.Yashoda Bai, but she died on 24/3/1998 itself. The defendant denied to give Xerox copy of transfer deed and asked him to approach the Court, and as such, the plaintiff filed the present suit.