Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1976
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J
Ashish Nevatia, Chennai
Versus
Prabhat Kumar Nevatia & Others
A.No.4116 of 2011 in C.S.No.366 of 2008
Decided on : 20-04-2012
For the Applicant :M/s. Satish Parasaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. Raghavachari, Advocate.
The court emphasized that the cause of action for the present suit was different from the earlier suit, and the mere existence of arbitration proceedings and pending Special Leave Petitions did not bar the present suit for partition.
Headnote:
Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for partition, permanent injunction, and rendition of accounts by the first respondent against the applicant and 23 others. The suit properties originally belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and the present suit was filed for the division of the HUF, of which the plaintiff and the defendants were members.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grounds raised by the applicant for rejection of the plaint did not hold merit and dismissed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Issues: The issues included whether the suit was barred by law, whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, and whether the relief claimed was undervalued.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not barred by law as the cause of action for the present suit was different from the earlier suit, and the arbitration proceedings and pending Special Leave Petitions did not bar the present suit for partition. The court also found that the plaintiff was not excluded from possession of the suit properties based on the statements in the plaint.
Final Decision: The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
1. The first defendant in the suit is the applicant in the application. The suit has been filed by the first respondent herein against the applicant and 23 others, who figure as respondents 2 to 24 in the application, for the relief of partition, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts.
2. According to the plaint averments, the suit properties and other properties originally belonged to the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia and his three sons, namely Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia, Srikrishna Nevatia (the father of the plaintiff/father of the first respondent) and Balakrishna Nevatia. The further case of the first respondent/plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the defendants 5 to 8 are the children of Srikrishna Nevatia and Bimla Devi. Srikrishna Nevatia, who is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8, suffered a tragic death on 09.09.1975 due to a car accident that took place at Veppur in Villupuram District while he was travelling from Rameshwaram to Chennai. Till his death he was a member of the Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia HUF. Subsequently, except the property in Haveli, Rajasthan, which was impartible, all other properties of Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia HUF were partitioned on 29.02.1980. As per the partition, the shares of the HUF held in the companies that have been arrayed as defendants 9 to 24, were allotted to the inner HUF, namely Srikrishna-Pramod Kumar Nevatia HUF. The present suit has been filed for the division of the said HUF, namely Srikrishna-Pramod Kumar Nevatia HUF, of which the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 8 are members. Plaintiff and defendants 5 to 8 represent the branch of Srikrishna Nevatia and the defendants 1 to 4 represent the branch of Pramod Kumar Nevatia, who expired on 01.02.2001. As kartha of the family, Srikrishna Nevatia was entitled to collect all bonus shares and other benefits. Similarly, after the death of Srikrishna Nevatia, Pramod Kumar Nevatia, the father of the defendants 1 to 4 as kartha of their family was in receipt of the bonus shares. During the lifetime of Srikrishna Nevatia and thereafter during the lifetime of Pramod Kumar Nevatia, they used to collect such bonus shares and other benefits, encash the same and make payments to the members of the joint family. After the death of Pramod Kumar Nevatia, the first defendant (the applicant in the application), without informing the death of his father, continued to receive the above said benefits in his father's name and encashed the same as if he was alive. Investments in shares had been made in the name of the plaintiff and in the name of the father of the defendants 1 to 4 jointly and individually. But the fund for such investments came from the joint family estate. Pramod Kumar Nevatia, the father of the defendants 1 to 4 did not have any self-acquisitions. Thereafter, the 6th defendant wanted to start a business, for which Pramod Kumar Nevatia did not agree. In order to arrive at an amicable settlement Rameshwar Prasad Nevatia and Balakrishna Nevatia were appointed as arbitrators. They passed an interim award on 01.02.1985 and a final award on 28.02.1994. But, Pramod Kumar Nevatia, the father of the defendants 1 to 4 and the 6th defendant had disputes over the same, pursuant to which proceedings were dragged to the court in O.P.No.95/1995 and O.P.No.865/1997. As no partition was effected, Pramod Kumar Nevatia, the father of the defendants 1 to 4 filed a suit for partition on the file of this court in C.S.NO.354/1986. Subsequently, the same was transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and re-numbered as O.S.NO.15523/1996. The said suit was subsequently dismissed for default in 2006. Similarly, the 6th defendant initiated proceedings before this court in C.S.No.603/1987 for partition, but the same was withdrawn in order to proceed with the arbitration proceedings. However, the award passed by the arbitrators was set aside by the court and the
