Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Mrs. Anjeli Vaid —Plaintiff
versus
Mr. Sanjay Gupta and Ors. —Defendants
CS(OS) 231 of 2019, IAs 6315 of 2019, 6317 of 2019, 8128 of 2019, 22 of 2020 and 627 of 2020
Decided on 16.3.2020
For the Plaintiff:Mr. Muneesh Malhotra and Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocates
For the Defendants:Mr. Mohit Gupta, Mr. Ankit Jain and Ms. Alka Chojar, Advocates. for applicant (Ms. Meher Gupta)
For the Defendant Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Sonali Chopra, Advocates
For the Defendant No.3:Mr. Rajat Agnihotra, Advocate
For the Defendant No.4:Mr. Shiv Chopra, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Local commissioner may be appointed in a suit for rendition of accounts.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure,1908 – Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 – Appointment of a receiver – Suit for partition, injunction and rendition of accounts – Commercial properties of deceased – Generation of income from – Entitlement for share from – Defendants admitted that plaintiff is entitled to 20% of the net income received from the commercial properties – Matter can be decided either by directing the parties to arrive at a consensus on the expenses, themselves by sitting together or by appointing a Local Commissioner who would determine the justifiable expenses – There is an element of mistrust between the parties – Effect of – Held that, local commissioner is appointed and parties shall be at liberty to appear before the learned Local Commissioner for a preliminary hearing. [Paras 13,17 and 19 ]
Result: Application disposed of
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
I.A. 6317 of 2019
1. By this order I shall decide the instant application, which is filed by the plaintiff under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of a receiver.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff and so contended by Mr. Muneesh Malhotra, Advocate that the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit for partition, injunction and rendition of accounts being a legal heir of late Yatendra Nath Gupta (‘late Y.N. Gupta’, for short) who died on January 12, 2019. It is the case of the plaintiff that late Y.N. Gupta was a man of means and had various commercial properties in his name, which include 15-E, 16-E(i), 16-E(ii), 17-E, 18-E, 19-E, 20-E, 21-E, 40-E and 41-E in Block E, Connaught Place, New Delhi and residential house No. 139, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi and share in the estate of L. Gopinath HUF. Besides the aforesaid properties, late Y.N. Gupta had substantial bank balance as well as jewellery and funds running in crores of rupees at the time of his death.
3. He submitted that after the demise of Y.N. Gupta, plaintiff has sought her share in the property of the deceased, which was denied to her and she was offered a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per month during her lifetime. He stated that by attitude and approach of defendant Nos.1 and 2, it became apparent that plaintiff shall not be given her share without due legal process. He also stated that in the written statement the defendant has admitted the fact that the two properties i.e 16-E(1), 17(E) were generating monthly rent of Rs.40,73,875/-. The other properties were also generating monthly rent of approximately Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Thus, in the given circumstances, the estate of late Y.N. Gupta is generating approximately Rs.42.50 lacs per month. He also stated that it is admitted in the written statement that defendant Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 and 4 each are entitled to 20% of the income earned from the commercial properties.
4. It was his submission that during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the defendants agreed that the plaintiff is also entitled to her share of 20% from the rent received. However, the issue boiled down to the expenses, which the defendant No.1 is claiming from the receipts. He stated that this Court had directed the defendants to file documents from the date of the death of the deceased till December 31, 2019. However, the defendants avoided such compliance despite orders of this Court. Finally, the defendants filed documents for the quarter October 01, 2019 till December 31, 2019. Even the filing of documents post the said period till January 31, 2020 shows that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have completely misused the funds.
5. It was his submission that from the books of accounts and other detailed calculations, it is admitted by the defendants that the plaintiff’s share of 20% would be Rs.7,56,695.27 per month. It was further his submission that by inflating the items of expenditure as well as including expenses which had no relation to the management of the estate of Late Y.N. Gupta, the defendants have completely usurped the share of the plaintiff and thus were manipulating the accounts, the appointment of Court receiver under such circumstances would be inevitable. Mr. Malhotra has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as (2001) 3 SCC 176 Kasturi Bai and Ors. v. Anguri Chaudhary to contend that collection of rent by the receiver when different tenants occupying different portion of the suit property, is justified. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as (2009) 11 SCC 127 Parmanand Patel (Dead) by LR’s and another vs. Sudha A. Chowgule and Ors to contend that where tenants have to be inducted, appointment of receiver is justified.
6. That apart, he also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case reported as AIR 2006 Bombay 92 Victor John Gomes (Decased) & Ors. v. Thomas John Gome
