Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
R. Gururajan, J.
Nimbana Gowda — Appellant
Vs.
Appa Saheb and Others — Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 4339 and 4386 of 2000
Decided on : 05-12-2000
receiver - partition suit - Order 40, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure - 1954 sale deed, joint possession, appointment of receiver, auction of standing crops - T. Krishnaswamy Chetty Vs. C. Thangavelu Chetty and Others, AIR 1955 Mad 430, Srinivasa Rao vs. Babu Rao AIR 1970 Kar 141, Chimalakonda Ramasubbaraya Sastri and Others Vs. Ganapathiraju Venkata Appalanarasimharaju and Others, AIR 1940 Mad 217, ICICI Vs. Karnataka Ball Bearings Corporation Limited, AIR 1999 SCW 3421, Subheti Vs. N.R. Lodhi, AIR (33) 1946 Nag 354
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of ancestral property. Defendant No. 2 claimed ownership based on a 1954 sale deed. Plaintiffs sought appointment of a receiver for the agricultural lands. Trial Judge allowed the appointment of a receiver and auction of standing crops.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Judge's order appointing a receiver and auctioning standing crops was upheld. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and the appointment of a receiver was just and convenient.
Issues: Validity of appointment of receiver, ownership based on 1954 sale deed, joint possession, compliance with legal principles for appointment of receiver
Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld the appointment of a receiver based on the Plaintiffs' prima facie case and the just and convenient nature of the appointment. The Court also considered the legal principles for appointment of a receiver as laid down in relevant judgments.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the trial Court's order appointing a receiver and auctioning standing crops was confirmed. Each party was ordered to bear their respective costs.
Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:
The case involves a dispute over the partition and ownership of ancestral property, with the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession. The defendant claims ownership based on a sale deed executed in 1954, asserting that he has a valid title to the property (!) (!) .
The trial court ordered the appointment of a receiver and directed the auction of standing crops, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and that the appointment was just and convenient. The court also took into account the conduct of the parties and the necessity to protect the property (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant challenged the order on the grounds that the appointment of a receiver was improper because the plaintiffs lacked title to the property and that the order was contrary to established principles for appointing receivers. The appellant argued that the plaintiffs’ claim was based solely on possession, not ownership (!) (!) .
The respondent's counsel contended that the trial court properly exercised its discretion after considering all relevant facts, documents, and conduct of the parties, and that the order was justified and within legal bounds (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the appointment of a receiver is a discretionary act that must be exercised prudently, based on the circumstances, including the existence of a prima facie case, potential danger to the property, and conduct of the parties. The court found that the trial court had properly considered these factors (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate court noted that the trial court's exercise of discretion was not arbitrary or capricious and that the principles of law regarding the appointment of receivers had been properly applied. The court also acknowledged the importance of caution and circumspection in such matters (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court referred to relevant legal standards that permit the appointment of a receiver as a matter of prudence, emphasizing that such orders are not made automatically but based on the justice of each case. It highlighted that the order in question was in line with these principles and that the appellant had not demonstrated any valid grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it, confirming the order of the trial court. It also stated that parties could seek modification or vacation of the order if justified, and that costs would be borne by each party (!) .
These points summarize the core legal reasoning, factual background, and procedural outcomes as reflected in the document.
R. Gururajan, J.—These two appeals are filed by the Defendant-Appellant challenging the order passed in IA Nos. 1 and 3 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Haveri, dated 24.10.2000. Parties are referred as per their original ranking before the trial Court.
2. Plaintiff-Respondents, filed a suit against the sixth Respondent in OS No. 22 of 2000 seeking for partition and separate possession of their alleged 17/24 th share in the suit scheduled property consisting of agricultural lands in addition to house property situated in Sy. No. 54/1A+B/2 measuring 4 acres 14 guntas situated in Ijari Lakamapur Village. According to the Plaintiff, the suit-scheduled property is the ancestral property of Mudigowda Andani Gowdar. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant No. 1 are the heirs and successors of Mudigowda in joint possession of the property. Defendant No. 1 was refusing to give their share resulting in the present suit. Plaintiffs filed IA.I seeking for appointment of a receiver in respect of agricultural lands. The present Appellant-Defendant No. 2 after coming to know of the suit filed by the Plaintiffs filed IA.II, got himself impleaded as Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 contended in his objections to the IA that he is the owner of the suit scheduled property in terms of a registered sale deed dated 21.4.1954 executed by the father of the Respondents and the husband of the second Plaintiff. According to him, father of the second Plaintiff conveyed his 1/3rd share in the joint family property in favour of the father of the Appellant-Defendant No. 1. Therefore the Plaintiff has no right, title, or interest over the property. He has also filed objections to the receiver's application. Learned trial Judge heard the matter and framed the following point reading as under:
1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that he has got prima facie case and as such it is necessary to appoint a Court receiver to lease the suit property bearing R.S. No. 54/A+B2 measuring 4 acres and 44 guntas of Ijarilakmapur, as per IA Nos. I and III and auction the standing crops in public auction and sale proceeds be deposited in Court, for the year 2000-2001 as per both applications?
After hearing the parties before him, the trial Judge allowed I. As. I and III. The operative portion of the order of the trial Judge reads as under:
IA Nos. I and III filed by the Plaintiffs under Order 40, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure to appoint a Court receiver are allowed.
One Sri S.S. Hiretanadavar, advocate is appointed as the Court receiver in this case. The Court receiver is hereby directed to lease the land in public auction either in the chavadi or in the village panchayat Ijarilakamapur for the year 2000-2001 as per IA No. I.
Further so far this I.A. No. I is concerned, already time has gone, because auction of land for cultivation can only be made in Ugadi festival. Now as per I.A. No. III the crops are ready for harvesting, as per the case of the Plaintiffs and the Court receiver has to auction the standing crops in the land in public auction. Hence, the Court receiver is hereby directed to auction the standing crop in the suit land in Chavadi or village panchayat, Ijarilakamapur and sale proceeds be deposited in the Court.
Sale proceeds can be distributed after the disposal of the case, to the parties who are entitled for receiving the amount. Fees for the Court receiver is fixed at Rs. 500/-.
The present appeals are filed being aggrieved by the order of the trial Judge.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Both the Counsel took me through the pleadings, documents and the arguments placed before the Court below. Learned Counsel for the Appellant questioned the order of the trial Judge by contending that the said order is contrary to the well accepted principles in the matter of appointment of receiver. According to him the learned trial Judge has committed an error in failing to notice the relevant ingredients in terms of Order 41, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. He
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
