Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ahmad and Misra JJ.
Prahlad Pd.Modi
Versus
Tikaitni Faldani Kumari
Civil Revision No. 1015 of 1955 ; 1075 of 1955 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 01, 1956
The Court held that the petitioners, S.K. Chatterjee and Prahlad Prasad Modi, had a paramount title to the properties in dispute and that the receiver appointed by the Supreme Court was not justified in interfering with their possession. The Court also held that the orders passed by the trial court in the matter of receivership were made by it as a Court and were not passed as an agent of the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, S.K. Chatterjee and Prahlad Prasad Modi, filed applications in the High Court of Patna challenging the orders passed by the trial court appointing a receiver for the properties in dispute. The petitioners claimed that they had a paramount title to the properties and that the receiver was not justified in interfering with their possession. The State of Bihar, which was one of the parties to the suit, contended that the petitioners' interests were not protected under Order 40, Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the trial court was justified in appointing a receiver.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioners had a paramount title to the properties in dispute and that the receiver was not justified in interfering with their possession. The Court also held that the orders passed by the trial court in the matter of receivership were made by it as a Court and were not passed as an agent of the Supreme Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had a paramount title to the properties in dispute? 2. Whether the receiver was justified in interfering with the petitioners' possession? 3. Whether the orders passed by the trial court in the matter of receivership were made by it as a Court or as an agent of the Supreme Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners had a paramount title to the properties in dispute based on the following factors: - The petitioners had been in possession of the properties for a long time before the receiver was appointed. - The petitioners had executed registered documents creating an interest in their favour in the properties. - The petitioners' possession was not disturbed by the receiver until after the notification issued by the State of Bihar vesting the properties in the State. 2. The Court held that the receiver was not justified in interfering with the petitioners' possession because: - The petitioners had a paramount title to the properties. - The State of Bihar did not have a present right to remove the petitioners from possession. - The facts of the case were not so complicated that the Court was justified in referring the petitioners to a title suit. 3. The Court held that the orders passed by the trial court in the matter of receivership were made by it as a Court and not as an agent of the Supreme Court because: - The order appointing the receiver was made by the Supreme Court, but it stated that the receiver was to be deemed to have been appointed by the trial court. - The trial court had the authority to pass orders in the matter of receivership.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petitioners' applications and set aside the orders passed by the trial court appointing a receiver for the properties in dispute.
Ahmad, J.
1. These two applications have been heard together as they arise out of the same case registered as title suit No. 23 of 1952 in the Court of the Sub-ordinate Judge at Deoghar. Civil Revision No. 1015 is by Prahlad Pd. & is directed against the order D/-7-10-1955, while Civil Revision No. 1075 is by S.K. Chatterjee and is directed against the order dated 2-8-1955. Both these petitioners in the Court be low were the third party objectors in a proceeding taken by them against the action of the party receiver appointed in the cause during the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court.
Their common claim was that they had been in possession of the properties specified in their petitions from long before the date of the appointment of that receiver, e.g., Tikaitni Faldeni Kumari Ghatwalin, the plaintiff-appellant in the Supreme Court and now the common opposite party No. 1 in this Court, and that their possession over the same was based on their own independent paramount title, and therefore, in law under Order 40 Rule 1(2), Civil P. C. they were not liable to be removed from the possession of those properties at the instance of the receiver.
2. The subject-matter of claim in Civil Revision No. 1015 of 1955 is the Ramchandra Bazar and Hat while the property in Civil Revision No. 1075 of 1955 is the Basauri Mahal, both lying in the town of Madhupur in the district of Santhal Paraganas.
3. The controversy in title suit No. 23 of 1952 relates to the title of entire Birtahum Ghatwali commonly known as Pethrcle estate. This estate on the death of her husband vested in Faldani Kumari as the next Tikaitni some time in 1935 and she had been in possession thereof as such till 29-5-1952, when under Sec.3, Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 , that estate was notified to have passed to and become vested in the State of Bihar.
Tikaitni Faldeni Kumari challenged the validity of the aforesaid notification and instituted a title suit which was registered as the aforesaid title suit No. 23 of 1952 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Deogharh, for a declaration that the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 did not apply to Pethrole estate, that being a ghatwali, & in the meantime prayed for injunction restraining the State of Bihar to interfere with her possession over the same. The prayer for injuction during the pendency of the suit was allowed but the suit itself ultimately on hearing was dismissed on merits. Thereupon Tikaitni Faldani Kumari filed an appeal against that decision in this Court which was registered as First Appeal No. 309 of 1954. This Court also during the pendency of the appeal had restrained the State of Bihar from interfering with her possession as Tikaitni.
But that appeal too was lost by her ultimately. She has now, therefore, gone to the Supreme Court & there her appeal has been registered as Supreme Court Appeal No. 94 of 1954, and is still pending for disposal. It appears that on the very day when the leave for appeal in the Supreme Court was granted, she made an application here as well for an order of stay restraining the State of Bihar to interfere with her possession during the pendency of the appeal in that Court. But the Supreme Court instead of issuing an order for stay, as prayed for, appointed the plaintiff-appellant there as the receiver pendente lite of the estate in dispute by its order dated 23-12-1954. The relevant portion of that order reads: "That petitioner-appellant No. 2 Tikaitni Faldani Kumari widow of Tikait Kali Prasad Singh be appointed receiver of the property relating to her case i.e., of the Pethrole Ghatwali situated in the sub-division of Deoghar in Santhal Paraganas, Bihar, subject-matter of Title Suit No. 23 of 1952. That the said petitioners-appellants shall not be required to furnish security.
That the said petitioners-appellants be deemed to have been appointed for all purposes as receivers by the Subordinate Judge, Depghar and shall act under the direction of th
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
