DALVEER BHANDARI ( 1 ) THE decreeholder has filed an application under Order XXI Rules, 11, 11-A, 13 and 41 read with Section 15of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decreeholder has obtained a Judgment and Decree from the Supreme Court of Hong Kong which is a superior court of a reciprocating territory" under Section 44-A of the code of Civil Procedure. ( 2 ) THE loan given by the decreeholder to the judgment-debtor is no longer in dispute. Now, the only obvious question which the decreeholder is called upon to reply is why is this execution petition filed in this court. Admittedly, the judgment-debtor owns no property in Hong Kong and on his admissions has no wherewithal in Hong Kong to satisfy the said decree. Therefore, recovery cannot be made through the courts in Hong Kong. According to the knowledge and information of the decreeholder, the only property in which the Judgment-debtor has share is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of this court, hence me execution of the said decree can legitimately be filed in this court alone. The decreeholder has reproduced the affirmation of the judgment-debtor in his petition and the same is reproduced as under: "i do not live in Hong Kong but in New Delhi. I have lost my business in Nepal to my business rivals. I am attempting to start up a new export- import business in Hong Kong in conjunction with my residual family business in India. " ( 3 ) THE judgment-debtor has immovable property as well as shares in various businesses within the jurisdiction of this court. The Judgment debtor on 24. 2. 81 and 25. 3. 82 represented to the decree-holder that he is a member of HUF and that HUF has immovable property 7-A and 7-B, Rajpur Road. Since the property in which the judgment debtor has a share is situated in the territorial jurisdiction of this court, therefore, the decreeholder has moved this court in India. The decreeholder further submitted that the fact the judgment debtor has a share in the said property is borne out by municipal, revenue and house tax records in which he is shown as joint owner of the above property. ( 4 ) BY the order of this court dated 20. 2. 87, this court issued warrants of attachment of l/4th share of the judgment-debtor in 32 flats situated at 7, Rajpur Road, Delhi. ( 4 ) BY the order of this court dated 20. 2. 87, this court issued warrants of attachment of l/4th share of the judgment-debtor in 32 flats situated at 7, Rajpur Road, Delhi. Again on a subsequent order of this court of 3rd March, 1987, warrants of attachment of l/4th share of the judgment-debtor in the land, buildings and property situated at 7-B, Rajpur Road, Delhi and commercial and office premises at 7-A, Rajpur Road, Delhi, were issued. ( 5 ) ON 8th April, 1987, E. A. No. 161/87 was moved. This application was filed by M/s United Estates under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the pleadings were complete, the court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the Objector partnership M/s United Estates is the owner of the property bearing no. 7-A, Rajpur Road, Delhi, as alleged? If so, to what effect? 2. Relief. ( 6 ) THE court ordered that the objections be listed for evidence of the parties on 25. 8. 88. Statement of Objector s witnesses OW-1 and OW-2 were recorded. Counsel for the Objector closed his evidence on 29. 8. 88 and on the same day, counsel for the decreeholder made a statement that he does not want to produce any evidence. Therefore, the matter has been placed for disposal of the objections. The judgment-debtor was produced in the court and he was examined by the counsel for the judgment-debtor and cross- examined by counsel for the decreeholder and the Objector. ( 7 ) THE judgment-debtor has admitted that the loan of Rs. 9. 096. 750. 50 US $ was given to him by the decreeholder. He further stated that this loan was advanced by the decreeholder to various companies of the objector. The decreeholder after seeing the status and life style of R. C. Jain and Prabhash Chand Jain advanced this loan. The loan was routed through the judgment- debtor. The judgment-debtor clearly stated he is a member of the HUF and he has a share in the HUF property i. e. 7-A and 7-B, Rajpur Road, Delhi. It is also submitted by him that in order to protect his interest, it has now become imperative to speak the truth. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the judgment-debtor, there has been no partition of the HUF property. It is also submitted by him that in order to protect his interest, it has now become imperative to speak the truth. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the judgment-debtor, there has been no partition of the HUF property. This fact is clearly borne out by the municipal, revenue and house tax records. In these records, the property is shown as HUF property and the name of the judgment-debtor is also recorded and the said property carries the name of all five brothers. According to the judgment-debtor, only one partnership was executed in 1957, when four out of five sons were minors. This partnership was never acted upon and no member of HUF was put in possession of his respective share according to the terms of partnership deed and this partnership in fact remained only on paper. ( 9 ) THE objector has mentioned that this petition is not maintainable. He has taken further objection that when the judgment-debtor ceased to be a member of the partnership firm, therefore, his share in the assets and property of the HUF after the partition of the HUF in 1957 cannot be attached and the attachment is consequently illegal and has to be removed. According to the objector, the immovable property belongs to the partnership firm, namely, United Estate situated at 7-A, Rajpur Road Delhi, w. e. f. 1. 7. 1983. The 2 deed was executed on 21. 1. 1984. The partners have the following shares: 1. Ramesh Chand Jain : 20 per cent 2. Prabhash Chand Jain : 20 per cent 3. Consolidated Planners and Builders; Pvt. Ltd. (Company regd. under Indian Companies Act) : 60 per cent ( 10 ) THE aforesaid properties were jointly owned by 1 ). Smt Ilaichi Devi Jain, widow of late Shri P. S. Jain 2 ). Shri Ramesh Chand Jain s/o late Shri P. S. Jain 3) Shri Sudesh Chand Jain s/o late Shri P. S. Jain 4) Shri Umesh Chand Jain s/o late Shri P. S. Jain 5) Shri Subhash Chand Jain s/o late Shri P. S. Jain and 6) Shri Prabhash Chand Jain s/o late Shri P. S. Jain. The said joint owners entered into a partnership with M/s P. S. Jain Co. Ltd. with effect from 1. 9. 77, a regular deed in respect of which was executed on 28. 9. The said joint owners entered into a partnership with M/s P. S. Jain Co. Ltd. with effect from 1. 9. 77, a regular deed in respect of which was executed on 28. 9. 77 and contributed the aforesaid jointly held property as their share to the assets of the said partnership, named and styled as M/s United Estates. By virtue of this act on the part of the joint owner, the property in question ceased to be co-ownership property and became a partnership property with effect from 1. 9. 77. ( 11 ) IT is further mentioned in the petition that the partnership evidenced by the deed of partnership dated 28. 9. 77 was dissolved on 31. 7. 78. Shri Sudesh Chand Jain retired from the partnership and a deed of dissolution dated 10. 8. 78 was executed by the parties. The remaining partners agreed to continue to carry on the business under the name and style of M/s United Estates. ( 12 ) THE partnership which came into being with effect from 1. 8. 78 was dissolved on 31. 3. 80 and a deed of dissolution evidencing the dissolution of partnership was executed by the partners of M/s United Estates on 29. 4. 80. Then, Smt. Ilaichi Devi retired from the partnership and the remaining partners constituted a fresh partnership with effect from 1. 4. 80. The terms and conditions of the new partnership were reduced into writing in a deed of partnership dated 19. 4. 80 executed between them. ( 13 ) THE partnership that come into existence on 1. 4. 80 was dissolved on 30. 6. 80 and the following persons retired from the partnership after settlement of accounts:- 1. Shri Umesh Chand Jain 2. Shri Subhash Chand Jain 3. P. S. Jain Co. Ltd. 4. D. M. H. P. Sales Ltd. ( 14 ) ON 1. 7. 83, a new partnership of the remaining partners and a new partner taken by them namely, M/s Consolidated Planners and Builders Pvt. Ltd. was created. It is further submitted that M/s United Estates has always been assessed to income tax and all changes were informed to the Income tax Department. ( 15 ) SHRI S. K. Luthra appearing for the objector submitted that the judgment-debtor ceased to have any interest or share in the immovable property after the partition of 1977 came into being. It is further submitted that M/s United Estates has always been assessed to income tax and all changes were informed to the Income tax Department. ( 15 ) SHRI S. K. Luthra appearing for the objector submitted that the judgment-debtor ceased to have any interest or share in the immovable property after the partition of 1977 came into being. ( 16 ) SHRI Luthra, learned counsel for the objector submitted that the oral partnerships are valid under the Partnership Act and a partnership cannot be ignored merely because it is oral in character. ( 17 ) IN reply to the submissions of the objector, counsel appearing for the judgment-debtor and the decreeholder submitted mat there is no iota of doubt that the judgment-debtor had a share in the said Rajpur Road property. Municipal, revenue and house tax records clearly establish that the judgment- debtor has a share in the said HUF property. It has been further mentioned by the Judgment-debtor that the objector was the eldest member of the family and he has been manipulating records according to his requirement and convenience. He has been creating and dissolving partnerships according to his benefits. In fact, there has been no partition of the HUF property. At no point of time, there was any settlement of account on the dissolution of partnership. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel for the judgment-debtor has also made reference to celebrated work of Mulla on Hindu Law in which Mulla has mentioned that shares are defined with the intention of immediate separation. In the instant case, there has been no probate proceedings regarding the shares of late father and mother of the objector and the judgment-debtor (brothers ). The judgment-debtor has also point out documents that partnership created by the objector was not held to be genuine by the income-tax officer and the order passed by the income tax officer has become final because no appeal was preferred against the said order. The judgment-debtor has further submitted that no books of accounts or partnership deeds were either signed by him or the other partners. In fact, the alleged partnership, except the partnership of 1957, has never taken place Precisely for that reason, the objector has failed to file the original partnership and dissolution deeds before this court because they were in fact never created. In fact, the alleged partnership, except the partnership of 1957, has never taken place Precisely for that reason, the objector has failed to file the original partnership and dissolution deeds before this court because they were in fact never created. There is no plausible and acceptable explanation by the objector for not filing the original partnership deeds before the Court. ( 19 ) I have carefully considered the entire documents on record, state- ments of the objectors 1 and 2 and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. On a careful consideration of the entire documents on records and submissions at the bar by the learned counsel, conclusion is irresistible that the judgment-debtor has a share in the HUF property 7-A and 7-B, Rajpur Road, Delhi and the factum of having taken the loan by the judgment-debtor has been clearly admitted by him. In these circumstances, the executing court has to confirm the ex parte order of the learned Single Judge dated 12th January, 1987 and 20th February, 187 and reflects the objections. I order accordingly. ( 20 ) LIST this matter before the Registrar of this court on 13th September, 1993 for taking appropriate steps for the sale of the share of the judgment- debtor for the satisfaction of the decree passed by the Supreme Court of Hong Kong in favour of the decreeholder. The Execution petition allowed with costs.