1 sg IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.974 OF 2011 Chirag Mahendra Gandhi ... Appellants Versus Bhagwanji Ratanshi Gandhi ... Respondents (since deceased) & Ors. Mr. Rajesh Jain a/w Sandeep Dhanga i/by Legal Juris for the appellant. Mr. Mehul Shah i/by Mr. Bharat Joshi for Respondent No.2 CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. The only aspect for which this appeal is filed is the grant of permission by the Trial Judge to defendants 1(a) to 1(c) to be the agent of the Court Receiver without payment of royalty. The only issue before the Trial Court was whether this appointment should with royalty or without royalty. This was upon the Court Receiver’s report being filed. The plaintiff and the sons of the plaintiff, who are defendant No.1(d) and defendant No.2, are before this Court. Defendant No. 1(d) and defendant No.2 have filed the appeal. The plaintiff has appeared as respondent No.2. 2. Defendants 1(a) to 1(c) are the wife and the daughters of deceased defendant No.1. All are members of one family; the plaintiff 2 and defendant No.1(d) and defendant No.2 on one side and defendants No. 1(a), 1(b) and 1 (c) on the other. 3. The suit is in respect of dissolution of firm. The partnership had two premises one in Botawala Building and one in Noble Chambers. The plaintiff carried on business initially in Botawala Building. The plaintiff has been the Court Receiver’s agent without payment of royalty. 4. The defendant No.1 was in possession of Noble Chambers. After his death, defendants 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c), who are his wife and two daughters, were to be appointed agents as the legal heirs of defendant No.1. 5. The parties bid for payment of royalty. The Court Receiver wanted directions from the Court in that behalf. 6. However, the learned Judge has considered the relationship between the parties, the fact of there being two properties and two branches, as also the fact that the plaintiff has not paid any royalty. Hence, despite the bids, the learned Judge has granted one of the premises at Noble Chambers to defendants 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c), as agents of the Court Receiver without payment of any royalty. 7. The order of the learned Judge is on extremely sound footing. It is an eminently just and equitable order. This court is gratified to see that the learned Judge has done complete justice to the parties. 3 8. The suit is decreed. The premises would have to be apportioned. The matter is pending between the Commissioner for taking Accounts. Royalty need not be claimed from defendants 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) alone. It would be appropriate that the parties apportion the properties as per their shares amicably and justly. Appeal from Order is dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)