1. Respondent No. 1, Nazir Ahmad filed civil original suit 88/95, against petitioner and other respondents for declaration, partition, possession and permanent injunction in respect of 30 kanals and 8 marlas of land situated at Manzahama Tehsil Beerwah District Budgam more specifically referred to in para 3 of the plaint. The suit is based interalia on the ground that plaintiffs mother Mst Misra and her two sisters Hafiza and Zarifa succeeds to the suit property and through them the respondents and petitioner inherit mathrooqa property of their father, Gh. Rasool.

2. The property is undivided and all three sisters are entitled to inherit the property in equal shares under personal law(Mohmmad-an Law). Plaintiffs Mother Mst. Misra and dependents 2 to 5s mother have died. The Plaintiff and the defendants are entitled to their share on petition. The defendant No.1 Hafiza who is possession of her and Plaintiff and other defendant™s shares, is refusing to effect partition and to part with possession of the shares of plaintiff and other defendants. Hence the suit.

3. On 30.9.95 plaintiff moved an application before the trial court of Munsiff Magam for appointment of receiver for the suit property with allegation that the suit property is being wasted and destroyed by the defendant. After the otherside filed objections, the Court heard the matter and passed a reasoned order on 1.9.97, allowing the petitioners application with avowed object of protecting and preserving the suit property. But keeping in view the fact that non-applicant (defendant No.1) being in possession of property, she was appointed as receiver with direction to protect and preserve the suit property and to maintain the accounts and to deposit the sale proceeds in Court. Against this order of Munsiff Magam, non-applicant/defendant Hafiza filed an appeal before District Judge Budgam. The learned District Judge after hearing the parties and on perusal of record on consideration of matter, dismissed appeal, upholding the order of appointment of receiver of the trial court. This order was passed by District Judge on 25.10.97. This order of 25.10.97 of District Judge Budgam and order dated: 1.9.97 of Munsiff Magam, are impugned in this revision.

4. The counsel for revision petitioner canvasses that orders passed by the trial court and as also the appellate court, are unjust. The suit has been filed after a long time after the death of the ancestor of parties. By appointment of receiver respondent No. 1 has been forced out of possession of suit land, petitioner has been thrown out of the land, even though she is kannisheen daughter and has come to acquire and inherit property under custom. Being law fully in possession, she could not be ousted under cover of the impugned order. The allegation of damage of wastage is not based on facts. The trial court as well as appellate court has not passed the order in accordance with law.

5. The counsel for respondents submits that the order passed by the trial court and confirmatory order of appellate court have been handed down in accord with provisions of order 40 Rule 1 CPC. The appointment of receiver in this case is just and legal, as the property was in danger of being wasted and damaged. The parties are entitled to inherit the subject matter of the suit, the matroka land estate of the last land holder, Gh. Rasool who happens to be father of petitioner and grandfather of respondents.

6. It is the personal law of the parties, here Mohmmadan Law, which would govern the succession of the parties to the matroka property of the last property holder. Custom being a special mode of inheritance, it is only when a party relying on customary Law here, institution of khananisheen daughter™, pleads and proves this custom as mode of succession, that such party would succeed to the property to the exclusion of all other heirs, but so long the custom is not pleaded and proved, it is predominantly and essentially the personal law that governs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document