IMPORTANT POINT
High Court s order for appointment of receiver is justified in the facts of the case but his remuneration is unproportionate to the amount of rent to be collected of suit property hence it is required to be modified from 10,000/- p.m. to Rs. 1000/- p.m.

ORDER

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:

"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."

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 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.

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 of a receiver