The Court has a complete discretion to appoint a Receiver where it is satisfied that it would be just and convenient, and the fact that the permits for the buses and lorries were in the name of defendant No. 1 did not mean that he was the owner of the vehicles.

( 1 ) CHARI, J. (1) This appeal is against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Ongole, passed in I. . A. . No. 1032 and 1055 of 1958 in O. S. No. of 1958 on his file. The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The order that is now impugned is an order appointing the 1st defendant in the suit as a Receiver for the motor buses and lorries the permits for which stand in his name. The plaintiff was also appointed Receiver for the Buses and lorries whose permits stood in his name and likewise the third defendant was appointed Receiver for the lorries in his name. The court after appointing these Receivers directed them to furnish accounts every month to the court and whenever there was any difficulty in the management, they were directed to take directions from Court.

( 2 ) IT may be necessary to state a few facts in order to understand how this litigation started and under what circumstances this order for the appointment of a Receiver was made. Five brothers, Papayya, Iyyavaru, Kotayya, Jalayya, and Venkataswami are all the sons of one Chintayya. The suit was filed by Venkataswami, the plaintiff, for division of properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint both moveable nd immovable. We are now concerned with the buses and lorries forming part of the movable properties mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint. The plaintiffs case was that in 1945 among the brothers, Papayya and Jalayya had gone out of the family and three others remained joint. It was also alleged that the plaintiff, defendants Nos. 1, and 2 were partners in the business entitled to a 1/3 share each. The further case of the plaintiff was that defendant No. 1 Kotayya was the manger of the business and had the benefit of the monies realised in the business; that amounts realised in the business were invested later on and they all formed part of the partnership business. Defendant No. 1 denied that there was any joint family property and averred that the properties belonged to him. He also stated that the alleged partnership with regard to the motor buses business was illegal not having been recognized by the authorities and being in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. His further case ws that in September, 1957, the plaintiff defendants Nos. 1 to 3 referred the matter to arbitration and in pursuance of the award of the arbitrators each one was put in possession of certain vehicles and that they were running them separately.

( 3 ) AFTER the pleadings were filed an application for the appointment of a Receiver was filed by the plaintiff which was subsequently withdrawn by him. It would appear that defendant a No. I. A. 1032 of 1958. Curiously enough the next day after the withdrawal of the application by the plaintiff, the second defendant filed an application for the appointment of a Receiver. This is I. A. 1055 of 1958. After hearing the arguments of the parties in regard to the appointment of a Receiver the Subordinate Judge appointed the plaintiff, the 1st and 3rd defendants as receivers sin respect of the vehicles according to the permits that they were holding. Against this order of the Subordinate Judge passed in the above applications the plaintiff preferred an appeal to this Court. He applied for the issue of an order directing suspension of the order appointing Receiver and our learned brother, ranganatham Chetty, J. passed an order on 31/10/1958 in C. M. Ps. 8693 and 8685 of 1958 appointing the 1st defendant and the plaintiff as joints receivers with equal powers to be in charge of a the suit vehicles excepting vehicle bearing No. APG-12. The further direction was that an account be opened in the joint names of the Receivers, that they should retain a third of the collections in their hands and deposit the 2/3rd in bank; if there was any disagreement they were to apply to the Court for directions. After this, the matter went to the lower Court and there being disagreement between the Receivers appointed by this Court, they applied

Click Here to Read the rest of this document