P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J.

( 1 ) ALTHOUGH this Letter Patent Appeal is from an interlocutory order passed by a learned single Judge granting interim stay of appointment of receiver made in I. A. No. 182 of 1990 in O. S. No. 49 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s court, Gudur subject to the condition of defendants 1 to 3 depositing a sum of rs. 10,000/- per annum from the date of filing of the said I. A. till the disposal of c. M. A. No. 1465 of 1992 preferred by the defendants, the learned counsel for both sides agreed to argue the main C. M. A, itself. Accordingly, we have heard the learned counsel for both sides and this judgment will dispose of the C. M. A. itself. The parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit o. S. No. 49 of 1990.

( 2 ) CHELIKAM Rajamma, the plaintiff (respondent in the C. M. A. ,) instituted the suit O. S. No. 3 of 1990 for partition of the plaint schedule property into four shares and for allotment of one share to her and for future profits.

( 3 ) THE first defendant is the Manger of the joint family properties, the second defendant is the wife of the first defendant, and the third defendant is the sister of the second defendant. The plaint schedule properties consist of three items. Item No. 1 comprises Ac. 20. 37 cents of dry land and Ac. 32. 18 cents of wet land. Item No. 2 comprises Ac. 3. 49 of dry land and Ac. 2. 01 cents of wet land. Item no. 3 is a well and Item No. 4 is a residential house.

( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that Penchal Reddy, the father of the first defendant, and her maternal grand-father, Yerrappa Reddy were brothers and in the half share of the property that belonged to Yerrappa Reddy, her mother s share was to the extent of 1/4 and due to the death of certain other co-sharers, her mother s share was enlarged to halt of Yerrappa Reddy s branch; her claim was therefore, to the extent of 1/4th of the plaint schedule properties. The suit was preceded by a lawyer s notice and in the reply sent by the first defendant to that notice, the stand taken was that Pitchamma, the mother of the plaintiff, relinquished her rights in the joint family properties in favour of the first defendant by taking Rs. 10,000/- to perform the marriage of the plaintiff s daughter. The plaintiff was herself out of the family fold; she was married in 1950-51 and since then, she has been living in a separate village with her husband. Along with the suit, I. A. No. 182 of 1990 was filed for appointment of receiver. In that application for appointment of receiver, it was pleaded that the respondents (defendants) have been squatting over the plaint schedule property and are bent upon depriving the plaintiff of her share of income and so, in order to avoid future complications in regard to the quantum of yield from the properties and to avoid waste and damage, a receiver should be appointed. Resisting that application, the defendants pleaded that the grounds mentioned therein would not afford any justification for appointment of receiver. We must also mention in this context that the first defendant filed I. A. No. 237 of 1990 in the trial court averring that on 24-5-1990, a written agreement was executed between the first defendant and the plaintiff for adjudication of the dispute by the village elders and, therefore, he sought stay of the proceedings in the suit and for reference of the matter to the village elders for arbitration in accordance with the said agreement.

( 5 ) BOTH the interlocutory applications, we are told, are to be listed together for hearing, but on 7-9-1992, I. A. No. 182 of 1990 concerning appointment of receiver alone was disposed of and the other application is still pending. The learned Judge allowed the plea of the plaintiff for appointment of receiver on the ground that admittedly, the plaintiff is not enjoying the income derived from the properties and that the defendants are admittedly in possession of the properties. Expressing th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document