Narayan Chandra Sil, J.
1. This is to consider an application virtually under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner is the plaintiff. It is stated in the petition that the suit being No. 330 of 1990 was filed on 7.4.1990 against the defendants with the prayer for declaration that the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu, deceased passed by intestate succession to the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the instrument dated 20th January, 1981 has in fact in no manner affected claim of the plaintiff to such estate and the declaration that the plaintiff has now 1/4th share in the estate of the brother of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu along with other incidental reliefs. In the said suit an application was filed by the plaintiff for appointment of receiver and injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with and/or disposing of and/or encumbering and/or withdrawing and/or in any manner transferring or parting with the possession of any portion of the movable or immovable properties of the said joint estate. On 17th April, 1990 an interim order was passed by Mr. Justice Prabir Kumar Majumdar restraining the defendants to withdraw a sum of Rs. 10,28,000/- and odd lying in the joint account. The said application was finally disposed of by His Lordship Mr. Justice Prabir Kumar Majumdar by an order dated 3rd July, 1990 whereby the respondents were restrained and injuncted from encumbering or selling the movable or immovable properties belonging to the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu. The respondents were further directed by that order that out of rent realisation, a portion equivalent to the share of the plaintiff and that of the defendant No. 3 would be set apart after deducting all expenses, taxes etc. in a separate account until further orders. The interim order passed on 17th April, 1990 was also vacated by that final order. The respondents were further directed to furnish quarterly statements relating to rent realisation and disbursement thereof to the Advocate-on-Record of the plaintiff/petitioner and such statement of accounts was directed to be given by the end of September, 1990.
2. It is alleged in the petition that the respondent apart from the respondent No. 3 despite full knowledge of the order dated 3rd July, 1990 and despite repeated requests wilfully and deliberately violated the said order by not furnishing quarterly statements regarding rent realisation and also disbursement thereof to the Advocate-on-Record of the petitioner since 31st March, 1997. The respondents also violated the said order wilfully and deliberately by withdrawing a huge amount out of the said sum of Rs. 10,28,000/- and odd leaving a meagre sum of Rs. 2,28,700/- and odd now lying in their Joint Account No. 205026352006 with the HongKong & Sanghai Banking Corporation, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta. The said respondents had also in violation of the said order removed the ancestral ornaments and silver utensils belonging to the petitioners and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 being a portion belonging to the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu, since deceased, by breaking open the locker being Locker No. 142/4 of Punjab National Bank, New Market Branch, Calcutta. The respondents also in violation of the said order have not paid the statutory dues like Municipal Taxes, Wealth-tax and Income-tax on behalf of the estate of the deceased Ajoy Kumar Gooptu in spite of their realisation of rents regularly in respect of the said immovable properties. The said respondents further violated the said order wilfully and deliberately by distributing amongst themselves the movable properties left by the mother of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The deceased Ajoy Kumar Gooptu had also a share in the said immovable property left by the mother of the petitioner and that of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
3. In such circumstances, on 13th October, 1999 the petitioner filed a contempt application being C. C. No. 381 of 1999 corresponding to C.A.N. No. 1781 of 1999 before the Court with several prayers. Thereafter His Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kalyanjyoti Sengupta by an order dated 14.10.1999 issued a rule against the respondents calling upon them to show-cause as to why they should not be committed to prison or otherwise penalised and suitably dealt with for having committed contempt of this Court wilfully, deliberately and contumaciously violating the order dated 3rd July, 1990. The respondents appeared before Justice Sengupta on 7th March, 2001 when the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 tendered unconditional apology and having regard to the age of the respondents and their conduct after filing of the contempt application His Lordship was pleased to take a lenient view in the matter with warning that in the event of further contempt there cannot be any mitigated circumstances to take any lenient view in future. By a separate order dated 14.3.2001 Justice Sengupta accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the respondents and dispensed with their personal appearance. But even after those two orders the respondents had continued violating the order wilfully and deliberately and failed and neglected to furnish quarterly statements of accounts showing collection of rents and its disbursement since July, 2002 despite oral and written requests of the petitioner. Of late before filing of this application the petitioner came to know that the respondents again violated the said order and encumbered major vacant portion of the premises No. 7B, Middleton Street, Calcutta by entering into an agreement proposing to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of the said vacant portion to Bata India Limited for a period well over seven years. The said Bata India Limited also proposed to change the nature and character of the ground floor portion of the said building for the purpose of using it as one of their show rooms and retail outlet centers on payment of huge amount of money to the respondents. The petitioner thereafter came to learn that the respondents had also encumbered the premises No. 7B, Middleton Street, Calcutta by inducting tenants like India Today, Jenson & Nicholson and I.F.B. in breach of violation of the injunction order. In such circumstances, the present application was filed with the prayers for appointment of receiver in respect of the property in question and for passing injunction order and also to attach the property as mentioned in schedules 'A' and 'B' and to sent the respondents to civil prison and also for other reliefs.
4. The petition is contested by the respondent No. 2, Ajit Kumar Gooptu by filing affidavit-in-opposition in which all the material allegations are denied and it is inter alia stated that the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 8 all will join him on the basis of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2. It is also stated that he is fully conscious of the order dated 3''July, 1990 and the concerned bank was also intimated accordingly. It is also stated that the said order was fully complied with and such statement of accounts had been prepared and furnished in terms of directions passed by the Court to the Advocate-on-Record of the plaintiff/petitioner, but still then the plaintiff filed a contempt application against the defendants being C. C. No. 381 of 1999 which was disposed of by the Court by order dated 14th March, 2001. It appears from the said order dated 14lh March, 2001, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 'B' in the affidavit-in-opposition, that the respondents tendered unconditional apology and undertook to the Court that they would not violate the order of the Court for which they were warned that in future they must not violate the order of the Court and in case of such violation stern action would be taken by the Court. It is specifically denied that the defendants were restrained by any order of injunction from withdrawing any portion or part of the sum of Rs. 10,28,000/- from the accounts maintained with HongKong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Calcutta.
5. As regards disposal of the ancestral ornaments and utensils belonging to the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu it is stated that the locker in question initially belonged to the Rai Bahadur Fanindranath Gooptu who was the grandfather of the respondent No. 2. In course of time the properties left by Fanindranath Gooptu were put into arbitration which could not be completed and thus the said properties could not be partitioned also. Thereafter, on 2nd May, 1994, a fresh arbitrator was appointed and the award was made and published on August 8, 1994 whereby lot C was allotted to the branch of the father of respondent No. 2 and pursuant to such award the aforesaid locker of Punjab National Bank falling in lot No. C was opened and contents thereof were removed and kept in custody of the heirs of Hari Prosad Gooptu, the father of the respondent No. 2.
6. It is also specifically stated that since such locker has been opened pursuant to the award passed in arbitration proceeding, question of violation of the order passed by this Court does not arise and in any event operating that locker cannot constitute subject-matter of the instant application as the order dated 3rd July, 1990 did not in any way restrain the defendants from obtaining their shares in respect of the properties left behind by Hari Prosad Gooptu, since deceased. It is also claimed that all due taxes in respect of the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu have been paid.
7. It is further stated that Promises No. 1A, Chowringhee Road, Calcutta was duly partitioned and the respective co-sharers took possession of their portion. But the Municipal Corporation instead of realising the taxes pro rata in respect of the portion occupied by the respective co-sharers were trying to realise the municipal taxes in respect of the entire premises from the heirs of Hari Prosad Gooptu for which a legal proceeding was initiated against the municipal authorities which is still pending before the High Court for quantification of proportionate share of municipal taxes. It is also stated that pursuant to the waiver scheme introduced by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation the municipal taxes have been duly paid.
8. Upon the death of the mother of defendant No. 2 in the year 1986, Sunanda Mallick, the plaintiff, the youngest sister of the defendant No. 2 made an allegation before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta for grant of succession certificate in her favour in respect of her undivided 1/5th share in the debts and securities left behind by their mother. The said application was registered as Act 39 Case No. 14 of 3996. The said case was allowed on June 23, 1986 and Smt. Sunanda Mallick withdrew her 1/5th share of the security. Thereafter another application was filed by the respondents and others under Act 39 praying for grant of succession certificate in respect of their respective 1/5th share in the property of the deceased which was allowed and the petitioners obtained their respective share in the property. The share to the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu had been duly set apart.
9. It is again stated that the statement relating to July, August, September, October to December, 2002 were prepared and furnished at the end of quarterly accounting period and handed over to M/s. Mukherjee & Biswas, the Advocate-on-Record of the defendants for the purpose of tendering the same to the Advocate-on-Record for the plaintiff. It is also mentioned that Mr. Deb Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate and partner of M/s. Mukherjee and Biswas and his assistant Mr. Debanjan Das who was looking after the case both died within a period of fortnight and the defendants could not trace out the documents in connection with the service of such statements on the learned Advocate-on-Record of the plaintiff.
10. It is further stated that the defendants in order to generate income from the said property had from time to time between 1990 till the date of filing affidavit-in-opposition created several tenancies with due notice and knowledge of the plaintiff and the accounts relating to the income generated from such tenancies were supplied to the plaintiff through their Advocate-on-Record.
11. It is also stated that in the year 1964 the demised premises had been let out to M/s. Johnson & Johnson which was in occupation until 1997 and the said fact was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff as it was reflected in the quarterly statement forwarded to the plaintiff from time to time. The defendant No. 2 states that the order dated 3rd July, 1990 is unambiguous and clear enough and there was no embargo upon the defendants to generate income from the said property. In the circumstances, it is prayed that the contempt petition be dismissed and the rule be discharged.
12. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff/petitioner has submitted the written notes on argument wherein it is stated that the respondents except the respondent No. 3 are guilty under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure having violated as many as three orders passed by this Court and those orders are dated (1) 3rd July, 1990, (2) 7th March, 2001 and (3) 14th March, 2001 by encumbering a major vacant portion on the ground floor of premises No. 7B, Middleton Street, Calcutta. In fact, the written notes on argument filed by the plaintiff is almost the reproduction of the petition so far the facts are concerned in particular.
13. During oral agreement Mr. P.K. Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff concentrated his arguments on the violation of the order dated 3.7.1990. It is pointed out by him that there are three consequences for violation of the injunction order under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and those are attachment of property, imprisonment and setting aside any transaction (here induction of Bata India Limited). Mr. Das then argues that in the instant case the respondents except the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said respondents') violated the injunction orders in two ways namely by granting lease of the suit property to Bata India Limited and by not rendering the statement of accounts. It is also pointed out by him that it is always incumbent upon the said respondents to ensure that the statement of accounts prepared by them are sent to the learned Advocate-on-Record.
14. Mr. Jishnu Saha, the learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the fact that three brothers namely Ajoy, Dilip and Ajit out of whom Ajoy was ill and two sisters had equal shares in the property in question. Here the plaintiff/petitioner Smt. Sunanda Mallick challenged the trust deed and if ultimately the said trust is treated to be cancelled the plaintiff may get 1/12th share in the property. It is also pointed out by him that the brother Ajoy died intestate having no issue and he was a divorcee. It is also pointed out by Mr. Saha that when the injunction order was passed on 3.7.90 the property in question was under the occupation of M/s. Johnson & Johnson as tenant and the tenancy continued till 1.6.1999. Mr. Saha has drawn my attention to first two paragraphs at the top of page No. 35 of the petition filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner and submits that it appears therefrom that letting out of the property is within the terms of the order. In fact the said two paragraphs relate to the order dated 3rd July, 1990 which I shall discuss at the appropriate point of time. Mr. Saha then argues that the plaintiff/petitioner having 1/12th share in the property cannot keep other co-sharers restrained from using usufruct of the property. It is further argued by him that with the death of the senior partners of the solicitors M/s. Mukherjee & Biswas the defendants could not produce the receipt of the learned Advocates on record of the plaintiff/petitioner and in this connection it is claimed by Mr. Saha that the respondents searched in the office of their solicitors but in vain. Mr. Saha has also taken me through Annexure 'C at page 33 of the affidavit-in-opposition and tries to impress upon me that they submitted the statement of accounts which was not denied by the plaintiff/ petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply. As regards the knowledge of the plaintiff/ petitioner Mr. Saha submits that the statement of accounts filed by the respondents show the income from the property although the plaintiff/petitioner did not raise any objection nor did she want to know as to how the income was generated from the property.
15. In the similar term as is made in the oral submission written notes on arguments were also filed by the said defendants/respondents.
16. The learned Counsels for the plaintiff/petitioner have cited a number of case laws which I shall discuss later on.
17. The main dispute which awaits determination in the present application is about the violation of three orders namely the orders dated (1) 3.7.1990, (2) 7.3.2001 and (3) 14.3.2001. The copy of the order dated 3.7.1990 appears as Annexure 'B' of the petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. The said order is in connection with the appointment of the receiver and it runs in several pages. At the very outset of the order it finds mention of an ad interim order restraining the defendants from withdrawing the sum of Rs. 10,28,000/- and odd now lying in the account with the HongKong & Sanghai Banking Corporation at 3A, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta. It seems to me that in order to appreciate the question of violation of the orders it is necessary to quote the relevant portion of the said order dated 3.7.1990 and it reads as under :
'There will he an order of injunction until further orders restraining the respondents from encumbering or selling the movable or immovable properties belonging to the estate of Ajov Kumar Gooptu, since deceased. This order will not however affect the shares of the parties in other properties not belonging to the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu, since deceased.
The respondents out of the rent realisations and other income from the movable and immovable properties belonging to the estate of Ajay Kumar Gooptu, since deceased will set apart the shares of the plaintiff and also the defendant No. 3 Smt. Tushar Sen to the extent of their shares in the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu, since deceased on intestacy as claimed in this suit after deducting all expenses, taxes and outgoings, and deposit the same in a separate account until further orders.
The interim order passed by me on 17th April. 1990 restraining the defendants from withdrawing the sum of Rs. 10.28,000/- and odd now lying in the account with Hongkong & Sanghai Banking Corporation, Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta under the account numbers mentioned in the letter dated 24th March, 1990 is vacated in view of the order made herein.
The respondents will furnish quarterly statements regarding rent realisations as indicated above and also disbursements thereof to the Advocate-on-Record of the plaintiff-petitioner as also the Advocate-on-Record of the defendant No. 3 Smt. Tushar Sen.
The first of such statement of account is to be given by the end of September 1990.'
(underlined for emphasis)
18. Now, on perusal of the aforesaid order it is very much candid that there was absolutely no restriction affecting the shares of the other parties in other properties not belonging to the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu. By the said order the respondents on the other hand were given the right for realisation of rent and other income setting apart the income from movable and immovable properties of the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu, since deceased and out of that the share of the defendant No, 3 and that of the plaintiff-petitioner in the estate of Ajoy Kumar Gooptu arc to be set apart by the respondents 'of course after deducting all expenses, taxes and outgoings, and deposit the same in a separate account until further orders'. By the said order the said respondents were directed to furnish quarterly statements relating rent realisation etc.
19. Order dated 7th March, 2001 appearing at page No. 53 of the petition is in connection with the acceptance of unconditional apology of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 whereas the order dated 14.3.2001 appearing at page 52 of the petition is in respect of the acceptance of apology tendered by the other respondents. So, virtually the allegation as regards the violation of the order is in respect of the order dated 3rd July, 1990 which I have already discussed.
20. Now, I shall discuss the case laws cited by the learned Counsels for the plaintiff/petitioner in the backdrop of the above situation.
21. Mr. P.K. Das, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred to the ratio decided in the case of Samee Khan vs. Bindu Khan AIR 1988 SC 2765. In the said case consequence of breach of injunction order under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure has been discussed and it was held that the Court has power either to order detention of disobeying party or attachment of his property. Mr. Das has also referred to the ratio decided in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs . Skiper Construction Company (P) Ltd., : AIR1996SC2005 , in which it was inter alia held that the contemnors should not be allowed to keep or enjoy the fruits of their contempt and where an act is done in violation of order of stay or injunction, it is the duty of the Courts to set the wrong right and not to allow the perpetuation of the wrong doing. Mr. Das has also referred the ratio decided in the case of STP Limited vs . Nirmaljit Singh Hoon, : (2002)1CALLT76(HC) , wherein it was held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that the persons inducted in violation of the order of the Court do not acquire any right and such induction is a nullity in the eye of law. Mr. Das is also referred to the ratio decided in the case of Krishna Kumar Khemka vs . Grindlays BankP.L.C. and Ors., : [1990]2SCR961 , wherein it was held that in case tenancy created in derogation and in violation of the order of the Court, no right can be created in favour of a third party and the creation of such tenancy is liable to be cancelled.
22. Mr. Das has then referred to the following case laws on the meaning of the term 'encumbrance'. Thus it was held in the case of State of H.P. vs . Tarsem Singhand Ors., : AIR2001SC3431 , that where all the rights, title and interests in village land is vested in the State Government 'free from all encumbrances' easementary right stands extinguished and also vested in the State. It was held in the case of National Textile Corporationand Anr. vs . State of Maharashtra and Ors., : [1977]3SCR525 , wherein the meaning of the word and phrase 'incumbrance' was spelt out and it was held that an incumbrance is a liability attached to property and it must be a burden or liability that runs with the land. It was held in the case of Mahadeo Prasad Sahu vs. Gajadhar Prasad Sahu AIR 1924 Patna 362, that case that grant of lands rent free or the grant of the landlord's zerait land to a tenant for the purposes of cultivation does not amount to an encumbrance. Apart from mere dealings such as mortgages which create a charge upon the land, there are other dealings which amount to an encumbrance. It was also held that anything which interferes with the unrestricted rights of the proprietors as they then existed would be an encumbrance upon the land, even the granting of a lease of zerait lands, that is to say the lands which the landlord is entitled to hold in direct possession and to cultivate for his own purposes.
23. The learned Counsel for the said respondents did not cite any case laws rather he has banked upon the case laws referred to by the learned Senior Counsel of the plaintiff/petitioner particularly those which are on the terms 'encumbrance'. It is thus stated as follows in the written notes of arguments filed on behalf of the said respondents :
'To support the contention that the expression 'encumbrance' includes 'letting out', the plaintiff has relied on the decisions reported in : AIR2001SC3431 , : [1977]3SCR525 and AIR 1924 Pat. 362. It will be clear from the decision reported in : AIR2001SC3431 that even in the same the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the word 'encumbrance' means a burden or charge upon property or lien upon an estate or on the land. 'Encumber' means burden of legal liability on property, and, therefore, when there is encumbrance on a land, it constitutes a burden on the title which diminished the value of the land. This is also the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in : [1977]3SCR525 . The case reported in AIR 1924 Pat. 362 is the case of grant of lands rent free or the grant of landlord's zerait land to a tenant and as such can have or has no application to the instant case'.
24. The last three case laws referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner as discussed above are all in respect of the meaning of the term 'encumbrance' and all other case laws cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner are in respect of the consequence of the violation of injunction order.
25. In view of the decisions as discussed above it is no doubt that leasing out a property in any form is nothing short of encumbering the said property. I have already discussed the order dated 3.7.1990 in the foregoing lines and it is candid therefrom that the said respondents were restricted from encumbering the estate of deceased Ajoy Kumar Gooptu but not the shares of other parties in any manner. Here the question of encumbering the property at 7B, Middleton Street, Calcutta by creating lease in favour of Bata India Limited and some other parties is the matter for determination. The order in question dated 3.7.1990 does not have any mention of the property at 7B, Middleton Street, Calcutta in particular. It appears from the said order that the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the trust deed executed by Ajoy Kumar Gooptu, since deceased. The learned Judge in the said order dated 3.7.1990 is candid enough to observe that the dispute between the parties appeared to be about the construction of the said trust deed. In the said trust deed Ajoy Kumar Gooptu appointed himself as trustee in respect of his undivided 1/3rd share of the immovable properties mentioned in the schedule and it was also provided that after payment of 1/3rd share of municipal taxes and other outgoings including repairs out of his 1/3rd share of the rents, issues and profits thereof to pay the left balance of the said rents, issues and profits and also the entire income of his immovable properties and assets to him for his own use and expenses and upon his death the said undivided 1/3rd share in the said scheduled properties and whole of his said movable properties and assets including cash money and investments of any account whatsoever was absolutely and for ever in the sons of his brothers Dilip Kumar Gooptu, the defendant No. 1 and Ajit Kumar Gooptu, the defendant No. 2 in equal shares subject to the payment of income thereof etc. Thus, it is clear that the property mentioned in the schedule of the said trust belonged to the three brothers and the deceased Ajoy Kumar Gooptu all the owner of 1/3rd share only. The learned Judge by his order dated 3.7.1990 exonerated the other respondents from dealing with their shares as I have already discussed earlier. And it is admitted in the written argument that a major portion of 7B, Middleton Street, Calcutta (and not the entire) was given on lease to different parties including Bata India Limited. From that point of view I do not find anything that the orders as mentioned repeatedly above passed by the Court earlier have in any way been violated by the respondents.
26. It may be mentioned here in respect of the allegation that the major portion of Rs. 10,28,000/- was withdrawn by the said respondents does not stand because the said interim order was vacated by the final order dated 3.7.1990 passed by the learned Single Judge.
27. It is claimed by the said respondents that the statement of accounts were sent from time to time to their solicitors to be transmitted and handed over to the solicitors of the plaintiff/petitioner and it is not specifically denied in affidavit-in-reply sworn on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner and even if, argumenti causa, it is taken that the solicitors of the said respondents did not send the said statement of accounts to the solicitors of the plaintiff/petitioner and thereby the order dated 3.7.1990 has been violated, I cannot hold that such violation was made wilfully and deliberately. In this connection it may also be taken into account that there is no denial as regards the factum of death of the senior solicitors of the said respondents and despite search from the office of the solicitors no proof could be obtained by the said respondents in order to establish the fact of sending statement of accounts to the solicitors of the plaintiff/ petitioner through the solicitors of the said respondents. And the death of the senior solicitors of the said respondents is also not denied by the plaintiff/ petitioner. It deserves mention also that the respondent No. 3 is not contensting the matter. In fact, there is no question of her contesting the same because the order dated 3.7.1990 also in her favour.
28. The instant application under consideration being G.A. No. 2004 of 2003 contains as many as 10 prayers namely (a) leave for serving notice of the application upon the petitioner, (b) appointment of receiver, (c) injunction restraining the respondents from dealing, disposing, encumbering, etc. of the movable and immovable properties of the joint estate, (d) attachment of the properties in question, (e) civil imprisonment of the said respondents, (f) setting aside the instrument executed in violation of injunction order, (g) status quo order in respect of the property in question, (h) ad interim order in terms of the above prayers, (i) costs and incidental to be paid by the said respondents and (j) any other appropriate order. Out of those prayers, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the prayers namely (a) and (c) were already allowed. Now, I do not find any merits as will be reflected from my above observations to appoint any receiver in respect of the properties in question and so also to allow the other prayers, for, it seems to me that the order dated 3.7.1990 is the proper safeguard of the joint properties of the parties.
29. Accordingly, the application being G.A. No. 2004 of 2003 is rejected. The rule issued in this regard is hereby discharged.
Leter :
30. The learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for stay of operation of the judgment delivered on 11.5.2004, in G.A. No. 2004 of 2003.
31. Prayer is considered and rejected.
32. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of the judgment mentioned above on the usual undertaking.