Sharma, J.—This is an appeal by Mst. Goran and Bhonrilal defendants against the order of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, appointing a receiver to realise the income from the property in suit.

2. The plaintiffs, who alleged themselves to be trustees of a certain trust called "Champalal Gopi Krishna Sahu Trust", created by Mst. Pokhli, averred in the plaint that the properties in suit belonged to Mst. Pokhli, who obtained a decree from the civil courts, Jaipur, against Mst. Goran for possession of those properties. The decree was obtained from the original court on the 4th of April, 1936, and was confirmed by the Jaipur Darbar on the 9th of December, 1939. The plaintiffs alleged that they obtained possession of the properties in suit in execution of the aforesaid decree on the 31st July, 1938, but thereafter the defendant, Mst. Goran, took possession of the properties illegally, and began to realise rents from the tenants. In their application for receiver the plaintiffs say that Mst. Goran has got no property from which the mesne profits might be realised in case the plaintiffs obtained a decree for possession and mesne profits. In order to show the financial position of Mst. Goran, the plaintiffs filed a copy of the plaint in a suit filed by Mst. Goran against Mst. Pokhli for maintenance in forma pauperis, and also a statement of Mst. Goran in the said suit recorded on the 13th of October, 1945. Mst. Goran had stated therein that she had no means to pay the court-fee.

3. Mst. Goran and another defendant Bhonri Lal opposed this application for the appointment of receiver, but the learned District Judge held that it was just and convenient that a receiver be appointed in the case to realise the income of the property in suit. Against this order of the learned District Judge, Mst. Goran and Bhonri Lal have filed this appeal.

4. It has been argued by Mr. M. M. Tiwari on behalf of the appellants that the learned District Judge did not apply his mind to the conditions necessary for the appointment of a receiver. He argued that a receiver could be appointed when there were circumstances which made it just and convenient that a receiver be appointed; but in the present case there were no such circumstances. He relied upon the observations of Lord Cranworth L.C. in the case of Owen vs. Homan (1) ((1853) 4 H.L. Cas. 997.). It was observed by his Lordships that:

"The receiver must be appointed on the principle on which the Court of Chancery acts, of preserving property pending the litigation which is to decide the right of the litigant parties. In such cases the Court must, of necessity, exercise a discretion as to whether it will or will not take possession of the property by its officer------Where indeed the property is as it were, in medio, in the enjoyment of no one the Court can hardly do wrong in taking possession. It is the common interest of all parties that the Court should prevent a scramble------------But where the object of the plaintiff is to assert a right to property of which the defendant is in the enjoyment, the case is necessarily involved in further questions. , The Court, by taking possession at the instance of the plaintiff may be doing a wrong to the defendant, in some cases an irreparable wrong. If the plaintiff should eventually fail in establishing his right against the defendant, the Court may, by its interim interference, have caused mischief to the defendant, for which the subsequent restoration of the property may afford no adequate compensation."

He also referred to the ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Benoy Krishna Mukerjee and others vs. Satish Chandra Giri and others (2) (A.I.R. 1928 Privy Council 49.), in which it was held that on an interim application for a receivership the Court had to consider whether special interference with the possession of a defendant was required, there being a well-founded fear that the property in question would be dissipated or that other irr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document