The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of a receiver is exclusively the possession of the court, and the court has the authority to determine the rightful party entitled to the property, based on the legal framework outlined in P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L Lakshmi Reddy 1957 SCR 195.

C.A. Vaidialingam, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arise out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Parur directing the Receiver appointed by that court to hand over possession of the suit properties to defendants 6 to 9.

2. It is necessary to state very briefly the events leading up to this C. R. P. and C. M. A.

3. Plaintiffs, claiming to be persons interested in the proper administration of the trust, have filed O. S. No. 72 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Parur for a declaration that the election of defendants 1 to 5 to the Managing Committee under a scheme is not valid and legal and that they are not entitled to function as people in charge of the management of the institution. In the suit itself the plaintiffs have also asked for an injunction restraining defendants 1 to 5 from taking and defendants 6 to 9 from delivering charge to the members of the new committee. It is also seen that defendants 6 to 10 who are members of the old committee ceased to be in the management on 24-7-1957 by virtue of the clauses in the scheme which governs the administration of the said institution. In consequence an election appears to have taken place and defendants 1 to 5 were declared duly elected on 27-3-1957 and in the ordinary course of events they should have taken charge of their office on 25-7-1957. On 24-1-1957, i. e., one day before they were due to take charge, the plaintiffs filed the suit for the reliefs mentioned above. They appear to have obtained an interim order of injunction as prayed and after notice to the parties the application for injunction was vehemently opposed by defendants 1 to 5: The learned Subordinate Judge who heard that application came to the conclusion that the election of defendants 1 to 5 to the committee of management cannot be said to be valid in law. The learned Judge also held that in consequence of this finding, defendants 1 to 5 cannot be allowed to assume management of the Devaswom. In paragraph 10, the learned Judge further observes that defendants 1 to 5 have levelled very serious charges against defendants 6 to 10. It is also stated "Counsel for defendants 6 to 10 submits that his parties are not at all anxious to cling to office. Hence I think that the proper course should be to appoint a receiver to administer the affairs of the Devaswom till the disposal of the suit".

4. In consequence of this finding, the learned Judge granted the injunction as prayed for and also appointed a receiver to take charge of the properties from defendants 6 to 9.

5. Pausing here for a minute, I should say that the attitude adopted, at that stage by defendants 6 to 10, was quite correct and certainly consistent with the interests of the trust and it clearly shows that at that time, at any rate, they had the interests of the trust at heart and they subordinated all their personal prejudices and grievances so far as that matter was concerned. But unfortunately they appear to have changed their mind subsequently as is seen from the attitude adopted by them in subsequent proceedings as also in this court in the C. R. P. and C. M. A.

6. C. M. A. No. 55 of 57 was filed by the plaintiffs against the order appointing a receiver. C. M. A. No. 56 of 57 was filed by defendants 6 to 9 against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge appointing a receiver. In C. M. A. No. 55 of 57, namely, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 5 also filed a memorandum of cross objections opposing the order of the learned Judge granting an injunction as against them.

7. The learned Additional District Judge of Parur heard both these appeals and the memorandum of cross objections and by a common judgment dated 25th October 1957 came to the conclusion that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge about the validity of the election of defendants 1 to 5 was not correct. The learned Judge winds up his discussion on this matter and held that the election of the new c