Mr. Govind Parshad vs Mr. Lalit Parshad & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3633 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                        Judgment Pronounced on: 01.08.2011

+ CS(OS) 2506/2008


MR. GOVIND PARSHAD                 ..... Plaintiff
              Through: Ms. Mala Goel, Adv.

                         versus


MR. LALIT PARSHAD & ORS           ..... Defendant
              Through: Mr. Abhinash Kr. Mishra, Adv.
              for D-1 & 10.
              Mr. B.S. Rana, Adv. for D-6.
              Mr. Rohit Valecha, Adv. for D-7 & 9.

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                              No.

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                        No.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported                       No.
   in Digest?

V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL)

IA 14673/2008 (u/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC)

1. This is a suit for partition of various movable and

immovable properties. The plaintiff is the grandson of Sh.

Alopi Parshad and his wife Smt. Shakuntala Devi, both of

whom have expired. Sh. Alopi Parshad and Smt.

Shakuntala Devi were survived by two sons namely Krishan

Parshad and Rajinder Parshad. Sh. Krishan Parshad was

survived by four children namely defendant No.1 Lalit

Parshad, plaintiff Govind Parshad, defendant No.2 Veena

Bansal and late Smt. Shashi Bala Gupta. Smt. Shashi Bala

Gupta, who died on 27th October 2004, was survived by

defendants No.3 to 5. Sh. Rajinder Parshad, the other son

of Sh. Alopi Parshad was survived by one son namely Arun

Kumar and three daughters, who are defendants No.7 to 9

in this suit. Sh. Arun Kumar has since died and was

survived by defendant No.6, who is his son, his widow Smt.

Satya Gupta and daughter Seema Gupta.

2. The partition has been sought in respect of the

following immovable properties:-

(i) 1, Gwalior Road, Agra Cantt, Agra, Plot of 17500 sq. yds.

with structures thereon including 'Mehar Theatre'.

(ii) 349, (346-349) Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi-110006.

(iii) Rights in 1361 and 1379, Sultan Singh Building,

Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

3. As regards the properties at serial Nos.(ii) and (iii)

i.e. 346-349, Kucha Ghasi Ram, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and

1361 and 1379, Sultan Singh Building, Kashmere Gate,

Delhi, the parties agree that they will maintain status quo

with respect to title and possession of the aforesaid

properties, during pendency of the suit. This, however, will

not come in the way of defendants No.1 and 10 releasing

their rights in the aforesaid properties in favour of

defendant No.6 in view of the compromise between them.

4. As regards property No.1, Gwalior Road, Agra

Cantt, Agra, admittedly this property stands in the name of

defendant No.10/Alop Parshad & Sons Pvt. Ltd. The case of

the plaintiff is that this property was in fact purchased from

the funds of the HUF headed by late Sh. Alopi Parshad. The

company could have utilized the funds of the HUF or of its

members, for the purchase of the aforesaid property only in

two manners i.e. either by taking a loan from the HUF

and/or its members or by utilizing the share capital, if any,

contributed by the HUF and/or its members, while

subscribing to the shares of the company. In either case,

the property acquired by the company does not become the

property of the HUF or any of its members. Since a

company is a separate legal entity capable of acquiring,

holding and disposing of property, if it acquires any

property either utilizing its share capital or taking loan, that

does not become the property either of the share holder or of

the lender. The property in such a case belongs to the

company though in case it has taken a loan for acquiring

the property, it would be liable to return that loan to the

lender in terms of the loan agreement between it and the

lender. Even if either the HUF or one or more of its

members have 100% shareholding in a company, the

property owned by the company cannot be said to be

property either of the HUF or of its members, so long as the

company is not wound up. In these circumstances, I see no

justification for placing any embargo on the right of

defendant No.10 company to deal with the aforesaid

property in any manner it desires. The learned counsel for

defendant No.10 states that in case defendant No.10 wants

to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of the aforesaid

property during pendency of this suit, it will inform this

Court at least one month in advance with intimation to the

opposite party. The learned counsel for the plaintiff states

that the stand of the plaintiff is that the property at 1,

Gwalior Road, Agra Cantt, Agra, through registered in the

name of defendant No.10, in fact belongs to HUF and the

plaintiff has a share in it. However, prima facie the plea

taken by the plaintiff in this regard is untenable.

5. Coming to the movable properties, as far as

Mercedes car valued at Rs.4 Crore by the plaintiff is

concerned, the learned counsel appearing for defendant

No.1 and 10 informs, on instructions, that this car had been

sold even prior to filing of the suit and the sale

consideration was Rs.5,40,000/-. Regarding the movable

properties mentioned at serial No.1 to 5 and 7 to 9, the

learned counsel for the parties agree that they will maintain

status quo to the extent these properties are in their

possession. It is made clear that licences for holding of the

swords, which are shown at serial No.9 in the list of

movable assets, in terms of the compromise referred earlier,

will not amount a contravention of this order so long as the

swords are preserved by the person in whose name the

licences are transferred.

This application stands disposed of in terms of this

order.

IA 2765/2011 (u/S. 151 CPC)

This is an application by the plaintiff seeking

payment of Rs.1 Crore to him during pendency of the suit.

At this stage, no such order can be passed, particularly

when the parties have already been directed to maintain

status quo with respect to the suit properties except the

property at Gwalior which prima facie belongs to defendant

No.10 company and not to the HUF.

The application is accordingly dismissed.

IA 993/2010 (u/O 7 R 11 CPC)

The learned counsel for the applicant does not

press this application and states that all these objections

can be considered by the Court while framing issues.

The IA stands dismissed as not pressed.

CS(OS) 2506/2008

List for framing of issues on 22nd November 2011.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE AUGUST 01, 2011 Ag