P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad, in I. A. No. 714 of 1994 in O. S. No. 51 of 1994 rejecting the application for appointment of Receiver for some of the suit schedule properties i. e. , a. cinema theatre, known as kamal Talkies , a godown let out to F. C. I, and a building bearing No. 3-1 -10 which is let out to various tenants.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the appellants that the second appellant is the daughter of late Sri K. R. Raja Reddy and the first appellant is the husband of the second appellant. The first and second respondents are wife and daughter of late Raja Reddy respectively. The second appellant claims l/3rd share in the properties held by Raja Reddy. The second plaintiff (2nd appellant) as the daughter and the first plaintiff (1st appellant) as the illatom-son-in-law are claiming 3/5th share over the properties. The defendants- respondents have disputed the relationship of the 2nd appellant to late Raja Reddy. It is the case of the defendants that she is a foster daughter of Raja Reddy. The alleged faction of adopting the first appellant as illatom-son-in-law is seriously disputed. The learned Counsel for the appellants relies on the prima facie finding recorded by the trial Court that the 2nd plaintiff is the natural daughter of late Raja Reddy. The declaration filed under the A. P. Agricultural Land Ceiling Act is also being relied upon for this purpose.

( 3 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the Receiver application, it is stated that unless the Receiver is appointed to receive the rent and remit the same to the credit of the suit, it will be very difficult to recover the same on later stage.

( 4 ) ASSUMING that the 2nd plaintiff is the natural daughter of Raja Reddy, that by itself does not clinch the issue and at any rate it cannot be a justification to appoint a Receiver. It is not in dispute that the documents of title relating to the aforementioned properties stand in the name of the 1st respondent i. e. , the wife of Raja Reddy. Whether or not the said documents are nominal and not genuine are all matters to be gone in the suit, as rightly pointed out by the learned Judge. It may be that some of the reasons given by the trial Judge are open to attack. It is equally true that many of the documents filed by the appellants have not been adverted to. But, it cannot be denied that without anything more, the said documents by themselves do not conclusively prove the nominal nature of the documents or the documents being spurious as contended by the plaintiffs.

( 5 ) TAKING an overall picture, especially the long passage of time between the date of death of Raja Reddy and the filing of the suit, we do not think that this is a fit case to direct appointment of Receiver at mis stage, more especially when we are inclined to direct the main suit itself to be disposed of without delay. The allegation that the appellants will not be able to recover the rents and profits in case of success in the suit remains as a bare averment only and it is not substantiated.

( 6 ) WE do not therefore see any ground for interference with the order under appeal. However, in order to safeguard the interests of the plaintiffs in the possible event of success, we direct that the aforementioned properties including the theatre should not be subjected to any encumbrances in future till the disposal of the suit without the permission of the Court.

( 7 ) WE also direct that in view of the old age of the 1st defendant, the suit shall be disposed of expeditiously and within a period of one year.

( 8 ) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above directions/observations.

( 9 ) BEFORE parting with the case, we have to record the difficulty which we experienced to find out the nature and details of 35 documents said to have been filed by the petitioners and 118 documents said to have been filed by the respondents.

( 10 ) THE learned Subord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document