1961 (3) TMI 118 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the attachment and sale of the tea gardens and export quota rights.
2. Allegations of fraud, collusion, and conspiracy.
3. Ownership of the tea gardens and export quota rights.
4. Applicability of Order 21, Rule 49 and Order 21, Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. Entitlement of the plaintiffs to the sale proceeds.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Attachment and Sale:
The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the attachment and sale of a ten annas share in three tea gardens and export quota rights therein, claiming it was unlawful and brought about fraudulently by the decree-holder defendants in collusion with Gangadhar Periwal. The court examined whether the attachment and sale were effected pursuant to lawful orders and whether the plaintiffs had full knowledge of the proceedings. The defendants contended that the attachment and sale were lawful and openly obtained.

2. Allegations of Fraud, Collusion, and Conspiracy:
The plaintiffs alleged fraud, collusion, and conspiracy, claiming the attachment and sale were brought about by the decree-holder defendants in collusion with Gangadhar Periwal. The court noted that the allegations of fraud and conspiracy were not substantiated by adequate evidence. The court found that the circumstances might appear suspicious, but the evidence was inadequate to record a finding of fraud and collusion against the Garodias. The case of fraud was expressly abandoned by the plaintiffs' counsel during arguments.

3. Ownership of the Tea Gardens and Export Quota Rights:
The plaintiffs claimed that the tea gardens and export quota rights belonged to the partnership firm of Garodia Periwal Tea Co. The court emphasized that the best evidence, such as leases or assignments, was not tendered to prove ownership. The evidence on record, including the partnership deed and the testimony of Gourishankar Mal, was considered inadequate to establish that the tea gardens and export quota rights belonged to the partnership firm. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove this essential fact.

4. Applicability of Order 21, Rule 49 and Order 21, Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The plaintiffs argued that the attachment and sale were contrary to Order 21, Rule 49 and Order 21, Rule 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court noted that the decrees sought to be executed were against the firm of Gangadhar Nathmull, and the tea gardens and quota rights attached did not belong to this firm. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the conditions laid down in Order 21, Rule 50 were not satisfied. Consequently, the contention that the decrees were not liable to be executed against Gangadhar and Nathmal personally was not upheld.

5. Entitlement to the Sale Proceeds:
The plaintiffs claimed a decree for the entire sale proceeds of Rs. 60,000 or alternatively, six annas share amounting to Rs. 22,500. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not instituted the suit for and on behalf of the partnership firm of Garodia Periwal Tea Co. and that the partnership firm stood dissolved upon the death of Nathmal. The court held that the plaintiffs had no cause of action on the basis of being co-owners with a six annas share in the quota rights.

Conclusion:
The suit was dismissed as the plaintiffs failed to prove the essential facts, including the ownership of the tea gardens and export quota rights by the partnership firm. The court directed the parties, other than the guardian of the minor defendant, to bear their own costs, with the plaintiffs paying the costs of the guardian assessed at Rs. 730.