Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
Remadevi, D/o. Meenakshi Channatty – Appellant
Versus
Daivapurackal Bhagavathy Temple, Meenathu Muri, Vallikkunnam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 12.04.2024 dismissing an application in I.A.No.12 of 2023 in O.S.No.40 of 2018 of the Subordinate Judges Court, Mavelikara, under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for appointing a receiver. Appellant was the petitioner in the I.A. and plaintiff in the O.S. Respondents were the counter petitioners in the I.A. and defendants in the O.S.
2. The original suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff in a representative capacity for framing a scheme for the smooth administration of the family trust and its temple. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the administration of the family trust as well as the family temple ought to be in accordance with the provisions of two deeds, namely, Nischayapathram of 1081 ME and registered Udambadi of the year 1977. The administration has to be carried out by the members of the Thavazhi line. Since the majority of family members are scattered all over Kerala by the passage of time, according to the appellant/plaintiff, administration of the temple and the trust had been usurped by some people who were connected to the temple and trust by way of marriage and from the paternal li
An appeal does not lie from an order dismissing an application for appointment of a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it lacks explicit authorization in the law.
Appointment of a receiver requires a judicious exercise of discretion; failure to adhere to procedural fairness resulted in setting aside the trial court's order.
The court upheld the appointment of a Receiver to protect religious property, affirming the right to worship and correcting procedural omissions under inherent powers.
An order reversing a trial court's rejection of a plaint is a remand order, not a decree, thus subject to different appeal provisions.
The substitution of an executor does not invalidate prior court orders against the deceased, as proceedings continue with the executor assuming all obligations of the estate.
Point of law: A person claiming to be the legal representative cannot make an application under Rule 9(2) of Order 22 for setting aside the abatement or dismissal, if he had already applied under Ord....
Point of law : On similar analogy, an appeal under the Act is provided against the order passed under Section 9(3) of the GW Act, 1890 and under Section 47 of the GW Act, 1890. So the principle of re....
The appointment of a receiver requires clear evidence of mismanagement and an element of urgency, which was not established in this case.
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
