Prima facie case in favour of appointment of Receiver.

Civil Revision Petition No.983 of 2005 is filed against the order dated 13.07.2005 allowing the application in I.A. No.1025 of 2004 in O.S. No.135 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif, Udagamandalam, filed under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment receiver to take possession of the suit schedule property, manage the same and submit the accounts to the trial Court till the suit is disposed off. Civil Revision Petition No.1134 of 2005 is filed against the order dated 13.07.2005 dismissing the application in I.A. No.259 of 2005 as to the maintainability of the suit and consequently to reject the plaint under Order XIV Rule 2 (5) and Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The necessary facts are as follows:

The respondent in both the revisions, is the husband, the plaintiff. The revision petitioner is the wife, the defendant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as in the plaint. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.135 of 2004 seeking for a judgment and decree of declaration that he is the owner of the said property on the ground that he entered into an agreement on 10.02.1992 along with his wife, the defendant in the suit to purchase the suit schedule property from its vendor for a total sale consideration in a sum of Rs.44,00,000/-. The sale deed was executed on 23.01.1995 as document No.858/1995 benami in the name of the defendant. The sale consideration of Rs.44,00,000/- was paid by the plaintiff from his own sources by way of two cheques of 51000 $ payable at Clydesdale Bank PLC, Stronoway. The plaintiff liked the ecology of the area Kothagiri. Therefore, he had chosen to purchase the property for his benefit. The other reason for purchasing the property benami in his wifes name was the stipulation made in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (In short FERA) under which a foreign citizen, (the plaintiff is a British national) could not acquire any immovable property in India, without the prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India. However, the said Act is now repealed. The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, would not attract to the case, as section 3(2) of the said Act exempted acquisition of immovable property in the name of wife or unmarried daughters.

3. After purchase of the suit property, the plaintiff spent huge amounts to reclaim the lands and to raise crops such as coffee, pepper, orange, etc., He raised cattle and sheep farms and laid roads at his own cost. He had also fenced the suit property with live wires to protect the crops from the wild animals. He had also installed generators and bore well etc. He named the estate as Nelson Estate and employed 50 workers. The plaintiff and the defendant had been living in the suit property till 2001. Incidentally, during the wedlock, the plaintiff and the defendant got a female child by name Antonia Kavitha and they fostered another female child by name Jayanna. During 2000, the defendant insisted to change her residence to Bangalore under the pretext of imparting education to children. The plaintiff provided her a separate residence at Bangalore by building a bungalow fully furnished and equipped totally at a cost of Rs.30,00,000/-. The defendant and the children shifted their residence to Bangalore. The plaintiff had been paying Rs.30,000/- per month for the maintenance of the defendant and the children.

4. During the middle of the year 2002, the plaintiffs health condition deteriorated and he was advised to go to England for treatment. During September 2000 he left India and got himself admitted in a hospital at England and remained there due to his health condition. During the period of his absence in India, he used to send money to the tune of Rs.30,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the suit property to the defendant. During March 2003, the plaintiff came back to India and found that the defendant had retrenched all the workers, sold a