Back
1991 Supreme(All) 888
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
S.N. SAHAY, J.
Mahant Baba Ram Nihal Das - Appellant
Versus
Ram Chander and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5044 of 1989
Decided On : 21-05-1991
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shafiq Mirza
For the Respondent: S.K. Mehrotra
A receiver can only be appointed if the applicant shows prima-facie that he has a strong case and good title to the property, that there is a special equity in its favour and that the property in the hands of the other party is in danger of being wasted.
Headnote:
RECEIVER - APPOINTMENT - CONDITIONS - JUST AND CONVENIENT - POSSESSION - MISMANAGEMENT - NECESSITY - ORDER 40 RULE 1 CPC - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, Ram Chandra Das, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Defendants, Ram Nihal Das and Vimaleshwaranand, claiming to be the Mahant of the Gaddi of Samadhi Govind Sahib. The trial court granted a temporary injunction, which was later vacated by the appellate court. The Plaintiff filed a writ petition challenging the appellate order, and the High Court stayed the operation of the appellate order and directed the appointment of a receiver to manage the property. The receiver was appointed, but later removed by the trial court. The Plaintiff filed another writ petition challenging the removal of the receiver, which was dismissed. The Defendant, Vimaleshwaranand, then filed an application for appointment of a receiver, which was allowed by the trial court. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the order appointing the receiver, which was dismissed by the District Judge. The Plaintiff filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the orders appointing the receiver were not justified as they were not passed in accordance with the provisions of Order 40 Rule 1 CPC. The Court held that the courts below had not considered the relevant matters and had not recorded conclusions which would justify the appointment of a receiver. The Court also held that the order dated April 9, 1980 passed by the High Court, which was relied upon by the courts below, was not an order for appointment of a receiver of property.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders appointing the receiver were passed in accordance with the provisions of Order 40 Rule 1 CPC? 2. Whether the courts below had considered the relevant matters and recorded conclusions which would justify the appointment of a receiver?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Order 40 Rule 1 CPC authorises a Court to appoint a receiver whenever it appears to it to be just and conversant. But it is settled by a long chain of judicial decisions that a party applying for the appointment of a receiver must show prima-facie that he has a strong case and good title to the property, that there is a special equity in its favour and that the property in the hands of the other party is in danger of being wasted. 2. The courts below have not considered the relevant matters and have not recorded conclusion which would justify the appointment of receiver.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed and the orders appointing the receiver were quashed. The trial court was directed to decide the application for appointment of receiver and objections thereto afresh in accordance with law.
S.N. SAHAY, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order dated December 17, 1988 (Annexure 3) passed by the learned District Judge, Faizabad in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 78 of 1988.
2. Ram Chandra Das has instituted a suit bearing No. 103 of 1978 against Ram Nihal Das and Vimaleshwaranand for permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. He claims to be Mahant of the Gaddi of Samadhi Govind Sahib situate in village Ahirauli, Tahsil fanda, District Faizabad. The suit was contested by the Defendants who claimed to be Mahant of the said Gaddi. The Plaintiff moved application 6/C, for temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering in the peaceful discharge of his duties as Mahant during the pendency of the suit. The application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge by order dated December 7, 1978. An appeal was preferred against this order which was Misc. Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1978. The appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faizabad on November 23, 1979 and the application filed by the Plaintiff for temporary injunction, was rejected The Plaintiff filed Writ Petition No. 3398 of 1979 against the order dated November 23, 1979. The operation of the order was stayed in the writ petition on November 22, 1979. The stay order was modified on April 9, 1980 and the following directions were issued:
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petition at this stage, I am of the view that the interim order which has been passed by the court is to be modified in the interest of the Petitioner and in the interest of the institution for preservation of the property of the Gaddi in question including the realisation of Tahbazari dues is concerned, neither the Petitioner nor the opposite parties will exercise any power pending disposal of the writ petition or the disposal of the suit or the disposal of the application for appointment of receiver in the case in case the same is still pending whichever event occurs earlier, the management of the Immovable property may be given in the charge of some other person, who may while managing the property consult the Petitioner as well as the opposite party Ram Nihal Das. So far as moveable property is concerned, a list of the same may be prepared and the same be submitted before the Court of Civil Judge. The Court of the Civil Judge where the suit is pending may appoint some person to manage the property during the period so far as the realisation of money including lahbazari are concerned and account is to be submitted before the Court every fortnightly by Manager so appointed who will also deposit the same before it every for night. So far as the other matters are concerned the parties would maintain status-quo as it stands today.
3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated April 9, 1980 the learned Civil Judge appointed Sri Ganesh Prasad Shukla, Advocate by order dated April 17, 1980 to act as receiver. This order was modified on April 24, 1980 and Sri Srawan Kumar Mishra, Advocate was appointed as receiver Sri Misra acted as receiver from August 24. to December 6, 1980. In the meantime writ petition No. 3398 of 1979 was decided. The writ petition was allowed on September 12, 1990 and the order dated November 23 1979 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge was set aside and it was directed that the appeal shall be decided de novo. In view of the decision of the writ petition, the interim order dated April 9, 1980 passed therein was discharged and the order appointing receiver was vacated by the learned Civil Judge on December 6, 1980.
4. In pursuance of the order dated December 12, 1980 passed in the above mentioned writ petition, the learned III Additional District Judge Faizabad heard Misc. Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1978 afresh and decided it on May 19, 1983. He allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Civil Judge and again rejected the application 6/C for
