Kasturi Bai v. Anguri Chaudhary, (SC) BS14041
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- D.P. Mohapatra and S.N. Variava, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 1466 of 2001 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10878 of 2000). D/d. 23.2.2001.

Kasturi Bai - Appellants

Versus

Anguri Chaudhary - Respondent

For the Appellants :- Mr. Gaurav Jain and Ms. Abha Jain, Advocates.

For the Respondent :- Mr. B.S. Banthia, Advocate.

Civil Procedure Code, Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 43 Rule 1(s) - Appointment of receiver - Plaintiff's application that taking advantage of her old age her sons have kept her under their clutches and have been enjoying the suit properties, they have been collecting the rent from the tenants without giving her any share and appropriating the same - Keeping in view the allegations made by the plaintiff and her age, the defendants cannot be entrusted with the funds - In such circumstances the High Court rightly ordered appointment of a third party as receiver on remunerations.

[Para 8]

ORDER

D.P. Mohapatra, J. - Leave granted.

2. 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 :

3. 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.

4. 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 2 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 40 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 (appointment) of a receiver and directed the trial Court to appoint a proper person. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

7. In course of hearing of this appeal learned counsel for the parties stated that hearing of the suit has commenced and some witness 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 costs.

Appeal disposed of.