Ex-partner suppressing 37-year exit to unleash parallel revenue proceedings (sec 115 & sec129 mplrc)

Respected Advocates,

Main apne elderly father (Senior Citizen, age around 74 years) ke liye urgent strategic legal guidance chahti hoon. Pichhle 6 saalon se revenue courts ki lagatar peshiyon, unnecessary litigation aur procedural round-tripping ki wajah se mere father physically aur mentally deeply exhausted aur stressed ho chuke hain.

Ab opposing ex-partner ne pending Section 115 proceeding ke parallel ek naya fraudulent Demarcation (सीमांकन under Section 129 MPLRC) ka case shuru kar diya hai. Case ki brief chronology, facts aur mere father ki legal status is prakaar hain:

1. Partnership Firm, Initial Shares and Purchase (1984):

• M/s Firm X June 1984 ko Indian Partnership Act, 1932 ke tehat register hui thi.

• Initial Shares (Five Partners): Registered partnership deed ke anusaar firm mein 5 partners the:

  • Partner A (Mere Father): 25% share — Saath hi partnership deed ke mandatory clause ke tehat unhe business lead aur overall administration manage karne hetu Managing Partner / Director banaya gaya tha.

  • Partner B: 20% share

  • Partner C (Present Applicant): 20% share

  • Partner D: 20% share

  • Partner E: 15% share

• Sale Deed Execution (July 1984): Commercial land ki registered sale deed mein purchaser strictly is prakaar darj hua:

  "M/s Firm X dwara bhagidaran Partner B aur Partner C".

  Dono ne keval firm ke representative/agents ke taur par sign kiye the, individual co-buyers ke roop mein nahi.

2. Mutation Register (Column 5 vs Column 7 Reality):

• Column 5 Entry: Mutation Panji No. 995 (dt. 18.09.1984) ke Column 5 (Vivaran) mein "dwara" shabd chhootne se "M/s Firm X bhagidaran Partner B aur Partner C" likha gaya. Ex-Partner C isi descripttive entry ko pakad kar misleadingly claim kar raha hai ki uska aur Partner B ka vyaktigat naam Khasra mein hona chahiye tha aur na hona clerical error hai.

• Operative Judicial Order (Column 7 & 8): Reality yeh hai ki Tehsildar ne Column 7 mein clear judicial order pass kiya tha: "भूमि फर्म को बेच दी गई / नामांतरण फर्म के नाम स्वीकृत" (Land sold to the Firm / mutation sanctioned strictly in firm's name). Kisi vyakti ka naam Bhumiswami ke roop mein sanction nahi hua.

• Revenue Records Continuity (40 Years): Pichhle 40 saalon se Khasra/revenue records mein keval M/s Firm X hi sole Bhoomiswami darj chali aa rahi hai.

3. Firm Restructuring, Exits and My Father’s Unchallenged Legal Position (1986–Present):

• 1986 (Partner B ka Exit): Partner B ne apna poora settlement bank cheque se receive karke firm se complete discharge liya aur exit kiya.

• 1989 (Partner C & E ka Exit):

  • Partner C ne June 1989 mein apna poora capital aur profit settlement (₹1,58,818) lekar firm se permanent exit kiya.

  • Partner C ne July 1989 ko sworn, registered affidavit execute karke declare kiya ki uska firm ya uski kisi asset mein koi claim nahi bacha, aur statutory Form-E / Form-5 par sign kiye.

  • Partner E ne bhi apna hissa lekar claim chhod diya.

• Reconstitution with Partner F & G: Partner C ke 1989 exit ke baad, mere father ne enterprise ko continue rakhne ke liye do naye partners (Partner F aur G) ko shamil kiya. Partner D bhi 1995 mein exit ho gaya.

• Year 2017 to Present (Sole Proprietor & Sole Custodian):

  • Year 2017 mein Partner F aur G ne bhi apna poora settlement lekar firm chhod di.

  • 2017 se mere father hi is enterprise ko lawfully as its Sole Proprietor run aur manage kar rahe hain.

  • Factory premises par 40+ years se mere father ka hi exclusive, continuous, peaceful aur undisturbed physical possession raha hai. Vahi is establishment ke sole legal custodian aur operator hain.

4. Fraudulent Play in Section 115 (Partner B ko Notice & Ex-Parte Tactic):

• 35 saal silent rehne ke baad, Partner C ne Section 115 MPLRC (clerical error) lagaya.

• Misleading Claim for Partner B: Partner C ne aavedan mein na keval apna balki Partner B ka naam bhi add karane ki maang ki, jabki Partner B 1986 mein hi poora hissa lekar alag ho chuka tha.

• Ex-Parte Setup: Usne mere father ya firm ko party nahi banaya. Usne keval State aur Partner B ko notice karwaya. Partner B (jo 1986 mein hi exit ho chuka tha aur jiska koi interest nahi bacha tha) court mein hazir nahi hua. Partner B ke appear na hone ka fayda uthakar Partner C ne revenue court se ex-parte order karwa liya ki Khasra mein firm ke aage Partner B aur Partner C dono ka naam jod diya jaye.

• Appellate Hierarchy & High Court:

  • Mere father ne First Appeal daali; Additional Collector ne SDM ka order set aside kiya holding that Column 7 order keval firm ke favour mein tha aur 35 saal purana record Section 115 mein modify nahi ho sakta.

  • Partner C ne revision lagayi aur Additional Commissioner ne Additional Collector ka order reverse kar diya.

  • High Court Judgment (WP-27158/2021): Hon'ble High Court ne hamari writ petition allow karke SDM aur Additional Commissioner ke adverse orders ko quash kiya kyunki firm necessary party thi jise sunna aniwarya tha. Court ne Partner C ko liberty di ki agar chahe toh firm ko party banakar afresh apply kare, par Court ne clearly clarify kiya ki maintainability aur merits par koi opinion express nahi kiya gaya hai aur dono parties preliminary issues raise karne ke liye fully free hain.

• Fresh Sec 115 Dragged for 9 Months: High Court ki liberty ka misuse karke Partner C ne dobara Section 115 lagaya. Humne preliminary objection (maintainability, limitation, locus standi) par extensive arguments complete kar liye hain, par SDM court pichhle ek mahine se preliminary order pronounce nahi kar rahi hai aur dates drag ho rahi hain.

5. The New Ambush: Parallel Demarcation (Sec 129 MPLRC) & Blatant Suppression of Facts:

Pending Section 115 preliminary order ka faayda uthate hue, Partner C ne ek parallel proceeding shuru kar di hai:

• Impersonation & Concealment: Usne Tehsildar ke samaksh Section 129 MPLRC ke tehat seemankan aavedan lagaya aur khud ko style kiya "M/s Firm X, Partner C". Usne apne 1989 ke exit, sworn affidavit, Form-E aur financial settlement ko poori tarah court se chhupa liya (gross suppression of material facts on affidavit). Uske paas firm ko represent karne ki koi authority, POA ya resolution nahi hai.

• Dismissal by Tehsildar (20.08.2026): Tehsildar (Urban Area) ne record dekhkar uska seemankan aavedan dismiss kar diya, holding that wo revenue records mein recorded Bhumiswami nahi hai aur Section 129(1) ke tehat use seemankan ka koi locus standi nahi hai.

• Misleading Appeal under Section 129(5) before SDM (Misusing Column 5 Entry): Tehsildar ke dismissal ke khilaf usne SDM ke samaksh Section 129(5) mein aavedan laga diya hai. Is aavedan mein bhi usne apne 1989 exit, full financial settlement aur Tehsildar ke dismissal order ke grounds ko poori tarah suppress kiya hai. Wo 1984 ki Sale Deed ke representative preamble aur Mutation Panji No. 995 ke Column 5 ki descripttive narrative entry ("M/s Firm X bhagidaran Partner B aur C") ka galat fayda uthakar khud ko co-owner project kar raha hai. Column 7 ke operative order (jisme land keval firm ko bechi gayi thi) ko deliberately conceal karke wo factory premises ka possession disturb karne aur boundary dispute khada karne ki koshish kar raha hai.

Queries for Legal Strategy & High Court Approach:

1. Can we approach the High Court directly against this deliberate suppression of facts and parallel proceedings?

   • Supreme Court ke established principles (S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu aur Dalip Singh rulings) ke tehat: "One who comes to court with unclean hands and conceals material facts is liable to be thrown out at any stage."

   • Kya hum High Court mein direct Writ Petition under Article 226 / 227 (for Certiorari / Prohibition) file kar sakte hain on the grounds of:

     • Partner B ka naam aage karke, use ex-parte karwake aur khud ke 37-year-old exit, Form-E va sworn affidavits ko deliberately conceal karne ke ground par?

     • Gross parallel abuse of process (running Section 129 demarcation parallel to a 9-month-pending Section 115 preliminary order)?

     • Misuse of High Court's earlier procedural liberty?

   • Kya High Court revenue proceedings ko stay ya quash karegi bina hume SDM ke unending dates aur procedural round-tripping ka intezaar kiye?

2. Civil Court Injunction vs High Court Writ:

   • Ek 74-year-old senior citizen ko 6 saal ke continuous revenue harassment se permanent relief dilane ke liye sabse fast aur durable route kaunsa hoga: High Court Writ ya Civil Suit for Declaration & Permanent Injunction with urgent Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC application based on estoppel and complete settlement?

3. Locus Standi under Section 129(1) MPLRC:

   • Jab Column 7 ke operative judicial order se land exclusively Firm ke naam par mutated hai aur Khasra mein 40 saal se keval Firm Bhoomiswami darj hai, kya SDM ke paas ek 37 saal pehle retire ho chuke partner ke kehne par (jo Column 5 ka sahara le raha hai) seemankan entertain karne ka koi jurisdiction banta hai?