The appointment of a Receiver and the grant of a temporary injunction are equitable remedies that are granted by the court in its discretion, considering the facts and circumstances of each case.

As the dispute among the parties herein relates to the same set of property with three distinct reliefs asked for in a suit, which is pending disposal, with the consent of the Bar for the respective parties, for probing the identical question of law, all the three matters were heard together and disposed of by delivering the common order.

2. The two appeals and the revision are directed by the first defendant by name Kari Gowder in the suit O.S.176/84, now pending before the learned District Judge at Ootacamund in Nilgiris District, for the relief of partition, possession and so on, filed by the respondent herein. The parties herein along with others are brothers owning extensive landed and house properties in and around Ootacamund in Nilgiris District like estates, tea and coffee gardens, house properties, bank deposits and so on, which are the several items of the suit properties. The plaintiff, viz., the respondent herein being the brother of the appellant/revision petitioner herein, claiming 9/40 share in all the items of the suit properties, on the basis that the same are the joint family properties, laid the suit in the year 1984. By filing a written statement the appellant/revision petitioner herein being the 1st defendant in that suit, mainly contended inter alia , that several items of the properties, particularly, the properties involved in these appeals and revision are not the joint family properties, but however claimed them as his exclusive properties in his actual possession and enjoyment and having denied the very claim of the plaintiff, he is resisting the suit. The trial of the suit commenced already and it appears recording of the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of one party was almost over by now.

3. Even so, it appears that there was proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Executive Authorities and consequently, the concerned Village Administrative Officer was put in charge of the properties involved in the applications as a Receiver, who by the order of this Court on a prior occasion was removed from that assignment. Subsequently, on 19. 1993 in Criminal R.C.523/93 the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor, dated 17. 1993, initiating Section 145 proceedings, was cancelled by this Court holding that there was no scope for maintaining the said proceedings. While holding so, this Court found that the landed properties referred to, were found in possession of Kari Gowder, who is the appellant/revision petitioner herein and the 1st defendant in the suit. In the last two paragraphs of the above order, I had the occasion to give the findings, which are extracted hereunder:-

“I therefore do decide and declare that the ‘A’ party Thiru H.M.Kari Gowder is entitled to possession of the disputed properties (as shown in schedule below and retain such possession until evicted in due course of law and the rights over the properties are decided by competent Civil Court and do strictly forbid any disturbance of his possession until such eviction. Village Survey No. Extent Nedugula 199 2.54 acres 204 1.41 acres 203 2.78 acres 200/1 1.85 acres 205 2.56 acres In view of the above decision, I hereby order under Section 145(6)(a) of the Cr.P.C. for the restoration of possession of the above lands to Thiru H.M.Kari Gowder the (x ‘A’ party). The attachment of properties ordered in Taluk proceedings No.MC No.3/83 dated 8. 94 is also withdrawn under Section 146(1) of Cr.P.C. from the Receiver and Village Administrative Officer Nedugula, and released in favour of the said ‘A’ party and Thiru H.M.Kari Gowder. The Receiver and Village Administrative Officer, Nedugula, is directed to hand over the attached properties and accounts to the ‘A’ Party through the Tahsildar, Kotagiri, under proper acknowledgments”.

4. It appears that pursuant to the said order passed by this Court in the Criminal Revision Case above referred, the appellant/revision petitioner h