Kasturi
Bai & Ors Vs. Anguri Chaudhary [2001] Insc 107 (23 February 2001)
D.P.
Mohapatra & S.N. Variava
D E R
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
Leave
granted.
The
defendant in the civil suit No.2-A of 1993 of the Court of Additional District
Judge, Shahdol, has filed this appeal assailing the order passed by the Madhya
Pradesh High Court on 20th June, 2000 in miscellaneous appeal No.1191 of 1998.
In the said order the High Court ordered appointment of a Receiver to be in
charge of the suit properties with other consequential directions. The relevant
portion of the order reads as follows:
As a
result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order dated 14.8.1998 is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed
to require both the parties to suggest an agreed name of a person within
fifteen days from the receipt of the record and a copy of this order, for his
appointment as a receiver in the case. In case, they fail to do so, within the
time fixed by the Trial Court, the Trial Court shall be free to appoint a
person of integrity as the receiver of the suit property, who is well
conversant with the legal procedures and is capable of maintaining true and
honest accounts of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The said
appointment of the receiver shall be made initially for a period of two years
and it shall be extended by the Trial Court on an application being filed by
the receiver or the appellant, in case, by that time the civil suit remains
pending before it. The trial court is further directed that it shall, after the
appointment of the receiver, try to dispose of the Civil Suit within a period
of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Trial Court
shall, from time to time, call for the accounts from the receiver so appointed
and supervise his work and in case, the work or accounts of the receiver is
found unsatisfactory by the Trial Court, it shall be free to appoint a new
receiver.
The
respondent herein filed the aforementioned suit impleading the appellants
herein as defendants. The plaintiff prayed for a decree for partition and
separate possession of the suit properties. The suit properties are structures
in occupation of tenants.
The
case of the plaintiff, shortly stated, was that the suit properties were the
exclusive properties of late Kishore Chand her father and husband of appellant
No.1.
Appellants
2 and 3 are the sons of Virender Kumar, a nephew of Kishore Chand. According to
the plaintiff neither Virender Kumar nor his sons (appellants 2 and 3 herein)
have any right title and interest in the suit properties. Taking advantage of
the old age of her mother they have kept her under their clutches and have been
enjoying the suit properties. The plaintiff further alleged that defendants 2
and 3 have been collecting and appropriating the rent paid by the tenants
without giving her any share therein. They are also inducting new tenants and
collecting premium money from them. The plaintiff also alleged that defendants
2 and 3 are making new constructions spending the money collected from the
tenants as rent. On these allegations the plaintiff filed the application under
Order XL Rule 1 C.P.C. for appointment of a receiver. She had also filed an
application seeking interim injunction against the defendants not to change the
status quo of the suit property and not to alienate the same.
The
defendants refuted the allegations made in the petition for appointment of
receiver mainly on the ground that they have been in possession and enjoyment
of the properties since long, for more than 50 years. It was their contention
that they have not caused any loss or damage to the suit properties and
therefore, no case for appointment of receiver is made out. They agreed not to
alienate any part of the suit property during pendency of the suit.
The
trial court rejected the prayer for appointment of receiver and dismissed the
application filed by the plaintiff. On appeal being filed under Order 43 Rule 1
(s) C.P.C. the High Court by the order passed on 20th June, 2000 ordered of a receiver and directed the trial court to
appoint a proper person. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.
In
course of hearing of this appeal learned counsel for the parties stated that
hearing of the suit has commenced and some witnesses have been examined. The
learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the suit is likely
to be disposed of within two to three months.
On the
facts and circumstances of the case the main duty to be discharged by the
receiver is to collect rent from the tenants occupying different portions of
the suit property; to maintain accounts of all the collections and place the
same before the Court. The question whether the suit property is the exclusive
property of late Kishore Chand;
whether
defendants 2 and 3 are entitled to have any share in the suit property will be
decided in the suit. The fact remains that appellant No.1 who is the widow of Kishore
Chand and mother of the plaintiff is a very old lady who cannot take upon
herself the task of collecting rent from the tenants regularly; of maintaining
accounts of the collections and to ensure proper maintenance of the structure
etc. The defendants 2 and 3, keeping in view the allegations made by the plaintiff
against them, cannot be entrusted with the work. In such circumstances the High
Court rightly ordered appointment of a third party as receiver.
The
learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the High Court
was impressed with the statement of fact that the suit property fetches Rs.20,000/-
per month as rent which is incorrect and misleading.
Referring
to the statement submitted by the receiver on 14.8.2000 the learned counsel
pointed out that only a sum of Rs.6,800/- was the collection during the month
of July.
In
such circumstances the High Court erred in ordering appointment of a receiver
on monthly remuneration of Rs.10,000/-. In reply to the said contention learned
counsel for the respondent fairly stated that Rs.25,000/- per month is an
exaggerated figure. He submitted that the receiver has voluntarily fixed a sum
of Rs.1,000/- per month as his remuneration and has been drawing such amount
after taking charge of the suit properties.
On
consideration of the matter we are of the view that the order of appointment of
a receiver does not call for interference. The order under challenge is
modified only to the extent that the receiver shall receive a sum of Rs.1,000/-
per month instead of Rs.10,000/- as his remuneration. Since hearing of the suit
has already commenced the trial court shall dispose of the same expeditiously
hearing it from day to day. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. No
cost.
Back