Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 1138
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
Merugumala Ravi Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Merugu Ramulu & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 171 of 2016
Decided On : 27-07-2022
K. Sita Ram, Advocate, for the Appellant; Damaraju Madhusudhan Vijay Kumar, Advocate, for the Respondents
The appointment of a Receiver is a discretionary power exercised by the Court to preserve the subject property pending adjudication of the rights of the parties. The purpose of appointing a Receiver is to benefit those ultimately found to be the original owners.
Headnote:
RECEIVER - APPOINTMENT - ORDER XL RULE 1 CPC - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of property, alleging that the defendant had executed a settlement deed in his favor, which was later canceled and subsequent settlement deeds were executed in favor of other defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for the appointment of a Receiver to take possession of the property, auction leasehold rights, and deposit the proceeds into the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiff had not made out a case for the appointment of a Receiver as there was no evidence of waste or damage to the property, and the rights of the parties were subject to adjudication after a full-fledged trial.
Issues: Whether a case has been made out for the appointment of a Receiver?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appointment of a Receiver is a discretionary power exercised by the Court to preserve the subject property pending adjudication of the rights of the parties. The purpose of appointing a Receiver is to benefit those ultimately found to be the original owners. In this case, the Court found that the plaintiff had not shown a prima facie case of success in the suit, there was no evidence of waste or damage to the property, and the rights of the parties were subject to adjudication after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, the Court held that the plaintiff had not made out a case for the appointment of a Receiver.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the lower court's order dismissing the application for the appointment of a Receiver.
JUDGMENT
Subba Reddy Satti, J. - This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the order, dated 17.11.2014 passed in I.A. No. 320 of 2014 in O.S. No. 62 of 2013 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, whereby the petition filed by him under Order XL Rule 1 and Section 151 of CPC seeking to appoint Receiver to take possession of the schedule property, to auction the lease hold rights every year and to deposit the proceeds into the Court pending disposal of the suit, was dismissed.
2. The appellant being the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 62 of 2013 for declaration to declare him as absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and also for relief of possession.
3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff, in brief, is that respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1, out of love and affection settled land to an extent of Ac. 1-88 cents in R.S. Nos. 50/1 and 50/2 (Ac. 1-03 cents in R.S. No. 50/1 and Ac. 0-85 cents in R.S. No. 50/2), Rajupeta Village, Pedapadu Mandal in favour of the appellant/plaintiff under registered settlement deed, dated 27.10.1998. Since the appellant/plaintiff was minor, his junior maternal grandfather and maternal uncle acted as his guardians. The appellant/plaintiff was born on 02.06.1992 and he attained the age of majority on 02.06.2010. From the date of execution of settlement deed appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The junior maternal grandfather and maternal uncle of the appellant/plaintiff got the land cultivated till he returned to Rajupeta. While so, in view of the hostile attitude of the respondents/defendants, the appellant/plaintiff verified with Sub-Registrar Office, Vatluru and noticed that respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1, without any lawful right or authority executed cancellation deed, dated 07.09.1999 and pursuant to execution of said cancellation deed, respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 executed settlement deed, dated 22.04.2006 in favour of respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 in respect of land to a total extent of Ac. 2-15 cents (Ac. 1-03 cents in R.S. No. 50/1 and Ac. 1-12 cents in R.S. No. 50/2 of Rajupeta village). Respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 in turn executed sale deed, dated 24.12.2009 in favour of respondent No. 3/defendant No. 3 in respect of land to a total extent of 1-15 cents (Ac. 0-03 cents in R.S. No. 50/1 and Ac. 1-12 cents in R.S. No. 50/2 of Rajupeta Village). In the plaint it was further averred that respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 has no authority to cancel the settlement deed executed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and to execute settlement deed in favour of respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2. Thus, the suit was filed.
4. Pending the suit, appellant/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 320 of 2013 to appoint Receiver in respect of the suit schedule property and to auction lease hold rights every year, deposit proceeds into the Court pending disposal of the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the appellant/plaintiff reiterated the averments of the plaint with regard to execution of settlement deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and execution of cancellation deed as well as settlement deeds by the respondents/defendants. It was also averred that the respondents/defendants, without any lawful right or authority, are squatting on the suit schedule property and swallowing the entire income derived from the suit schedule property, as such it is just and necessary to appoint Receiver to the suit schedule property, auction lease hold rights every year and to deposit proceeds into the Court.
5. The respondents/defendants did not contest the application. However, the respondents/defendants filed written statement in the main suit.
6. The Court below by order, dated 17.11.2014, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
7. Heard Sri K. Sita Ram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri D. Ma
