: 1 : IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS SUMMONS SUMMONS NO.485 OF 2008 NO.485 OF 2008 NO.485 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.550 NO.550 NO.550 OF 1989 OF 1989 OF 1989 Suresh Mohanlal Goradia .. Plaintiff. Versus Veena R.Shah & Ors. .. Defendants. And Pravin Kumar Agarwal .. Respondent. Mr.C.Ardeshir i/b.M/s.Pandya Gandhi & Co. for plaintiff. Ms.V.Mirashi i/b.Shah & Sanghvi for defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(f). Ms.S.I.Joshi for respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : R.Y. GANOO, J. R.Y. GANOO, J. R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE DATE DATE : 14th July, 2008. : 14th July, 2008. : 14th July, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit to seek a declaration that the property in question as described at "Exhibit-B" "Exhibit-B" "Exhibit-B" to the plaint is owned by the plaintiff- original defendant No.1, the defendant No.2 is representing as M/s.Shamlal Agarwal & Sons (Trust). : 2 : 2. Certain other reliefs are also sought in terms of prayer clauses (b), (c) and (d). A chamber summons is taken out by the plaintiff so as to seek that the plaintiff be joined as a party defendant to the suit. 3. Pleadings are complete. I have heard learned Advocates appearing on both the sides. 4. By a Deed dated 1.10.1973, as many as 7 persons came together and constituted a partnership firm, what is known as M/s.Ramkrishna Metal Works (Bombay). According to the plaintiff, when a bid was called upon for the purchase of the property, original defendant Nos.1,2,3,4 and 5 filled in the bid in the name of defendant No.6, namely, M/s.Ramkrishna Metal Works and that is how if the suit is decided in the absence of the present applicant, the applicant would be prejudiced. The partnership deed dated 1.10.1973, no doubt has the effect of enrolling the present applicant as the partner of M/s.Ramkrishna Metal Works (Bombay). However, subsequent Deed dated 15.1.1981 being in the nature of family arrangement came to be executed by certain persons inclusive of present applicant and exhaustive arrangements were arrived at insofar as various properties are concerned. 5. Clause 1 of the said Agreement dated 15.1.1981 : 3 : indicates that the present applicant, who is at serial number 11 in the said Agreement shall have no rights in respect of firm M/s.Ramkrishna Metal Works (Bombay) w.e.f. 31.12.1980. This will mean that w.e.f. 31.12.1980, the present applicant cannot claim right, title or interest in the business of the partnership firm of M/s.Ramkrishna Metal Works (Bombay). In the same document dated 15.1.1981 at Clause No.20, one finds a specific averment which goes to show that M/s.Shamlal Agarwal & Sons (Trust), a family Trust, is the owner of a plot of land bearing sub Plot No.6 in Plot No.U-8 of 14 Co-Operative Housing Societies at Juhu Vile Parle Development Scheme. It is common ground that this sub plot No.8 is the suit plot of land described at Exhibit-"B" Exhibit-"B" Exhibit-"B" and the applicant cannot claim any right in respect of the said suit plot of land. 6. This will clearly mean that the suit plot of land described at Exhibit-"B" Exhibit-"B" Exhibit-"B" is owned by the trustees of the trust M/s.Shamlal Agarwal & Sons (Trust), that is to say that the said trustees have substantive rights in respect of the property. As a result of the Clause 1 of family agreement dated 15.1.1981, the applicant has lost his right insofar as the firm M/s.Ramkrishna Metal Works (Bombay) and as a result of Clause 20 of the said Agreement, it is clear that the said plot of land described at Exhibit-"B" Exhibit-"B" Exhibit-"B" is with M/s.Shamlal Agarwal & : 4 : Sons (Trust) and the present applicant is not concerned with the said property. 7. It is the case of the present applicant that he is a trustee of the said trust. In view of above, either way, the present applicant has no direct concern in regard to the suit property and the present applicant has not been able to make out even a prima-facie case so as to show that he has a vested right in respect of the suit property in question in regard to which the suit is filed. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the applicant has not been able to show that if the present suit is prosecuted in his absence, his rights would be adversely affected. In my view, for the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the applicant is neither necessary nor a proper party to the present suit and the present chamber summons is required to be dismissed. Hence the order :- O R D E R R D E R R D E R a) Chamber Summons is dismissed with costs. sd/- (R.Y.GANOO, (R.Y.GANOO, (R.Y.GANOO, J.) J.) J.)