Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 549
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.Santosh Hegde : V.N.Khare
S.Saleema Bi
Versus
S.Pyari Begum
Case No. : 2066 of 2000
Date of Decision : 3/13/00
Appointment of a Receiver requires a prima facie case and a finding that the measure is just, convenient, and urgent, especially when the defendant is in physical possession of the property.
Headnote:(A) Appointment of Receiver - Suit for partition - A Receiver can only be appointed when it is just and convenient, there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, and the case calls for taking urgent measures - If the defendant is in physical possession of the property and the court has not examined these criteria, the appointment of a Receiver is not legally justified. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
In a suit for partition of property, the plaintiff applied for the appointment of a Receiver. The trial court rejected the application, but the High Court subsequently allowed the appeal and appointed a Receiver. The defendant, who remained in physical possession of the property, appealed the High Court's decision.
Findings of Court:
The High Court did not address whether the appointment of a Receiver was just and convenient or if there was a prima facie case necessitating urgent measures.
Issues: Whether the appointment of a Receiver was legally justified given the defendant's physical possession of the property and the absence of findings on the necessary legal prerequisites.
Ratio Decidendi: The appointment of a Receiver is an extraordinary measure that requires a prima facie case and a determination that the appointment is just, convenient, and urgent. The failure to analyze these requirements, especially when the defendant is in physical possession, renders the appointment unjustified. (Para 3)
Result: Appeal allowed; order of the High Court set aside.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE Appellant herein was defendant in a suit filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent for partition of the property. In the said suit, the Plaintiff-Respondent made an application for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the property in dispute. The trial court rejected the said application. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff-Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and appointed a Receiver in respect of the property in dispute. It is against the said order the defendant is in appeal before us.
(3) WE have heard learned counsel and perused the judgment. We find that the defendant is in physical possession of the property in dispute. The Receiver can only be appointed when it is just and convenient and also when there is a prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent and the case calls for taking of urgent measure like appointment of a Receiver. The High Court has not gone into these questions while appointing Receiver for the property in dispute. We, therefore, find that the appointment of the Receiver was not legally justified. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court.
(4) THE appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, the hearing of the suit may be expedited.
