1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal .From a consolidated order in two miscellaneous applications filed by the peti--tioner herein for appointment of receiver of certain properties mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the plaint and injunction to restrain the defendant from using certain documents concerned and shares or interfering with the management of the Standard Bank and Standard Insurance Company, attachment of a plot of land situated at Lahore and standing in the name of one Shamimur Rahman, a son of the defendant, and an application for the commitment of the defendant for contempt for disregarding an order for the maintenance of the status quo passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court on 14-12- 1972.
2. These applications were filed in a suit instituted by the petitioner herein against the defendant, who is his younger brother, four a declaration that four agreements entered into between the parties on the 4th of May 1970, the 8th of May 1970, the 11th of May 1970 and the 5th of July 1970, were unenforceable and void. Alternatively, if the agreements are held to be valid, then for a decree for Rs.3,13,87,500.
3. The cause of action alleged in the plaint was that the defendant had, with the assistance of some Army Generals, planned a scheme to oust the plaintiff (petitioner) from the control of the Standard Bank and the Standard Insurance Company, and, in execution of this scheme, the defendant had fraudulently induced the plaintiff and/or forcibly coerced him to enter into these agreements to hand over his share holdings in the above-mentioned Companies and their subsidiaries to the defendant and to retire from the management and control of these concerns in consideration for the payment of Rs.2.70 crores by the defendant. In pursuance of these agreements, the plaintiff handed over the shares along with blank transfer forms of the face value of Rs.15 lacs, resigned from the Chairmanship of the Bank and the Insurance Company and got formal documents of transfer with regard to the other properties, some of which consisted of immovable properties, drawn up, but. Before they could be executed and the formal transfer effected the defendant forcibly snatched away the papers from the Secretary of the Bank and refused to pay the sum of Rs.2.70 crores, agreed to be paid under the agreements by the defendant. Hence, the suit and the miscellaneous applications.
4. The prayer of the plaintiff (petitioner) was for appointment of himself `as a receiver of the following properties:-
(1) 23000 shares of Standard Bank Ltd. Of total face value of Rs, 23,00,000 alongwith Transfer Deeds duly verified.
(2) 150000 shares of the Standard Insurance Co. Ltd. Of face value of Rs.15,00,000 alongwith Transfer Deed duly verified.
(3) Agreement for sale of Wood Street plot by Standard Investments Ltd. To A. R. K. Industrial Managements Ltd.
(4) Letter of Attornment to six tenants of Wood Street plot in favour of A. R. K. Industrial Managements Ltd.
(5) Shares of Sima Laboratories of total face value of Rs. 2,50,000 alongwith Transfer Deeds duly verified.
(6) Six Receipts, all dated 6-7-1970, issued by Secretary, Standard Bank Ltd., in token of deposit of shares of Standard Bank Ltd.
(7) Letter of resignation on behalf of the plaintiff tendering resignation as Chairman and Director of Standard Bank Ltd.
(8) Letter signed by the plaintiff tendering resignation as Chairman of the Standard Insurance Co.
5. The High Court refused this application as it transpired that "admittedly the major portion of the shares stand in the name of the persons other than the parties in this suit". Apart from this, it appears that it was also admitted on behalf of the plaintiff (petitioner) in the High Court that the "shares delivered to the defendant did not stand in his (plaintiff's) name". With regard to the immovable properties also it transpired that admittedly the properties stood in the names of persons other than the plaintiff.
6. The High Court was, therefore, of the opinion that unless and until the petitioner could establish his title to the property, he was not entitled to ask for the, receiver to be appointed. The Court, however, took steps to safeguard the interests of the petitioner during the pendency of the suit by directing the defendant not to utilise the shares in any manner except under the directions of the Court and prohibited the defendant from registering any transfer in regard to these shares in the books of the Company concerned without prior permission of the Court.
7. The application for injunction, it appears, was not seriously pressed with regard to items 6, 7 and 8 of the properties already mentioned. It was, however, pressed with regard to item 3 and the immovable property at Lahore, standing in the name of the son of the defendant. In this case, the Court accepted an undertaking given by the defendant in his counter-affidavit that during the pendency of the suit, he would not do any act which alters the status of this property as to its ownership until further orders of the Court.
8. With regard to the prayer for attachment of certain godowns situated in Lahore, standing in the name of the son of the defendant, the prayer was refused because the property was outside the jurisdiction of the Court and stood in the name of a person who was not a party to the suit.
9. The application for committal of the defendant for contempt was also refused because the allegation was only of a vague nature and apart from the ipse dixit of the plaintiff, there was no other evidence to show that any attempt had been made to deal with the property despite the order of the Court for the maintenance of the status quo.
10. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and the same arguments have been canvassed before us in support of this petition as were urged in the High Court. It is unnecessary to recount them all over again. It is sufficient to point out that in the circumstances mentioned, the plaintiff was clearly not entitled to either of the prayers made by him in the High Court.4 as none of the properties stood in his name. His title to the properties was disputed and, therefore, until the dispute was decided he could not ask for a receiver to be appointed and the person bona fide in possession deprived of the properties.
11. The very fact that in his plaint itself, the petitioner made an alternative prayer for a decree in terms of money showed that he himself was not certain as to whether he had clear title to these properties. _ In the circumstances it does not lie in his mouth to say that he has made out a prima facie title which alone could entitle him to be ~ appointed as a receiver of these properties.
12. The High Court has taken a sympathetic view and done the best it could do in the circumstance to protect the interests of the petitioner. No just exception can be taken to the order of the High Court.
13. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.