Vipin Sanghi, J.

C.M. Nos.19322/2019, 19355/2019 in FAO(OS) 84/2019

C.M. No.19324/2019 in FAO(OS) 85/2019

C.M. No. 19354/2019 in FAO(OS) 87/2019

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

FAO(OS) 84/2019

FAO(OS) 85/2019

FAO(OS) 87/2019

The appellant has preferred the present three appeals to assail the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No.11/2017 as well as in the pending applications, i.e., IA No.349/2017 preferred by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 seeking maintenance of status quo in respect of the suit properties; IA No.12634/2018 preferred by defendant no.4/appellant seeking release of what he claimed to be his share from the amount of Rs.7.5 crores received from the sale of 50% of the property bearing A-12, Lawrence Road, Delhi, and; IA No.12633/2018 by the defendant no.4/appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint.

2. The plaintiffs Sunita Aggarwal and Anju Aggarwal who are impleaded as respondent nos.1 and 2 in the present appeals, have filed the suit to seek declaration/cancellation, partition and injunction against the defendants i.e. their father Shri Tej Ram Aggarwal (defendant no.1) who has been impleaded as respondent no.3, mother Smt.Pushpa Devi/respondent no.4 and also her brothers Shri Vijay Shankar Aggarwal, Shri Ravi Shankar Aggarwal, Shri Shiv Shankar Aggarwal and Shri Prem Shankar Aggarwal i.e. the appellant and the respondent nos.5 to 7 respectively. In the suit, the plaintiff's claim is that they, along with their parents and brothers, constitute a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) which owns several properties. This claim regarding the existence of the HUF is premised upon the document executed inter se between their father and their brothers wherein the existence of the HUF has been acknowledged.

3. The claim of the plaintiffs is that their father and brothers subsequently entered into a settlement amongst themselves, excluding the plaintiffs therefrom, and decided to appropriate the HUF properties amongst themselves. One of the properties, namely, property no.A-12, Lawrence Road, Delhi has admittedly been disposed of and a part of the sale consideration i.e. Rs.7.5 cores in respect of 50% of the said property has been deposited with the Registry, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court.

4. In the aforesaid background, the learned Single Judge has, firstly, directed maintenance of status quo in respect of the properties claimed to be the HUF properties. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has rejected the application of the appellant/defendant no.4 i.e. IA No.12634/2018, (while simultaneously dealing with IA No.10337/2018 preferred by defendant no.3, for similar relief), wherein they sought release of their share out of the amount of Rs.7.5 crores deposited with this Court towards sale consideration of 50% of the property bearing A-12, Lawrence Road, Delhi. The learned Single Judge has observed that the said defendants (brothers of the plaintiffs) in the suit) had admitted that they had already received their share of the sale consideration from the first sale of the 50% share of the Lawrence Road property and that no part of that amount had been deposited in the Court. Since the plaintiffs had not received any portion thereof, and their rights are yet to be adjudicated in trial in respect of their claims relating to several properties, their share deserves to be safeguarded. Consequently, the learned Single Judge rejected the said application filed inter alia by the appellant/defendant no.4.

5. The appellant/defendant no.4 had moved IA No.12633/2018 under Order 7 Rule 11 to seek rejection of the plaint on the ground of non-payment of court fee. This application was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the premise that the appellant had admitted that the plaintiffs used to visit the defendants from time to time and the question as to whether any of the belongings of the plaintiffs are lying in any of the premises in the defendants' possession