The court's discretion in appointing a receiver should be exercised judiciously, taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the dispute, the balance of convenience, and the potential harm to the parties.

Headnote:
RECEIVERSHIP - APPOINTMENT - POSSESSION - TRESPASSER - HINDU LAW - PARTITION - RE-PARTITION - DISCRETION OF COURT - ORDER XL, RULE 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of lands, alleging illegal dispossession by defendants. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff applied for appointment of receiver on grounds of imminent danger to the property. The trial court rejected the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged loss and damage to the property. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the order and directed the appointment of a receiver.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie title to the property in order to warrant the appointment of a receiver. The court noted that the defendants were in actual possession of the property and that there was a dispute regarding the validity of a second partition that allegedly took place in 1973. The court also considered the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of another portion of the family lands, which indicated that the plaintiff was not completely deprived of possession.
Issues: 1. Whether a receiver can be appointed in a case where the defendant is in actual possession of the property? 2. Whether the court can appoint a receiver in a case where there is a dispute regarding the validity of a second partition? 3. Whether the court can appoint a receiver in a case where the plaintiff is in possession of another portion of the family lands?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Order XL, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not debar the court from appointing a receiver even in a case where the defendant is a trespasser. However, the court noted that the appointment of a receiver is a discretionary remedy and that the court should consider all the facts and circumstances of the case before exercising its discretion. 2. The court held that the mere fact that there is a dispute regarding the validity of a second partition does not automatically bar the appointment of a receiver. The court noted that the plaintiff had alleged that the second partition was fraudulent and unauthorized, and that this allegation required further investigation. 3. The court held that the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of another portion of the family lands was a relevant factor to consider in determining whether to appoint a receiver. The court noted that this fact indicated that the plaintiff was not completely deprived of possession and that the appointment of a receiver would not cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the appellate court appointing a receiver. The court restored the order of the trial court rejecting the application for appointment of a receiver.

JUDGMENT - S.J. DESHPANDE, J.:---This revision application arises out of the suit filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner as defendant No. 1 and two others as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the original suit. The plaintiff filed this suit on 27th February, 1978 against the above a defendants for recovery of Khas possession regarding lands Survey Nos. 58-A and 60 situated at Kasar Sirsi, Taluka Nilanga. It is alleged in the suit that the plaintiff as the exclusive owner was in possession of the suit lands. Under the partition, which took place during the life time of his father, some 20 years, back, the lands, which fell to the share of the plaintiff, were given to the share of defendant No. 2 and some lands, with which we are not concerned, were given to defendant No. 1 and land Survey No. 103/B of Kasar Sirsi was allotted to defendant No. 3 in the suit.

2. The plaintiff further alleges that the suit lands have no concerned with the defendants. The plaintiff became exclusive owner of these lands under the partition and on the basis of that partition, sharers had got their respective shares and they were in occupation of the respective allotted shares.

3. It is further alleged that the plaintiff is a Government servant and he was unable to look after the property. As he was unable to look after the property, it is alleged in paragraphs Nos. 9, 11 and 13 of the plaint, that a vague proposal was made to the plaintiff by the defendants to form a co operative society and for that purpose some signatures were obtained and under those signatures, an application was given to the authorities concerned and it appears that is some change of lands which fell to the share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff alleges that the defendants fraudulently attempted to obtain the suit land which do not belong to them in partition.

4. It was specifically stated in the plaint that defendant No. 1 (that is, the petitioner) is in illegal possession of the suit lands since 1973 and before that the plaintiff was in actual possession as owner. Then the plaintiff claim mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per year from the date of in inception of this suit. Then it is alleged that defendant No. 1 was demanding possession but the possession was refused to him on 22nd October, 1977, and, therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Khas possession of the suit lands and for mesne profits.

5. During the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff made an application for appointment of receiver. The application for appointment of receiver was made on grounds that the suit land are in imminent danger on the ground that there were certain trees numbering 85 or 93, about which there is little controversy, which are cut by the plaintiff. Secondly, it was allegedly that there is a well in the disputed lands and the length and breadth of the well is likely to be reduced by the defendants and this caused damage to the property and the defendants are wasting the suit property.

6. This application was opposed by the defendants saying that in fact, the suit lands were partitioned among the brothers in 1973 in suppression of the partition which took place in 1957 and the present occupation of the suit lands by the defendants is consented by the plaintiff himself in an application which was filed by them before the revenue authorities and in pursuance of which mutation was also recorded by the Tahsildar in the year 1978. Relying on this circumstances, it was denied that there is any damage caused to the property. The trees were otherwise worthless and they were of no use and they were, therefore, cut down. They also contended that there is no damage caused to the well. It was contended that this is not a fit case for appointment of receiver as the defendant, who were in actual possession of the property, will be dispossessed by virtue of such appointment during the pendency of the suit and it will cause irreparable loss and harm to them.

7. The learned trial Judge was no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document