1987 Supreme(MP) 533

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
K.M. AGARWAL, J.
Krishan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Vikram Singh - Respondent
M.A. No. 39 of 1981 (G)
Decided On : 12-03-1987

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 40, R. 1 – interest and share can be safeguarded without appointment of receiver – property not yielding much income – receiver should not be appointed.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.39, R. 1 and 2, S. 141 and 151 – legatees likely to share the properties – their interest should be safeguarded.

        Short Note

       1. In Probate proceedings on the basis of an alleged codicil executed on 12 – 3 – 1978 by late Maharaja Balbhadra Singh, started at the instance of Shri Vikram Singh and Kunwar Ummedsingh (for short, the "legatees"), the Court below passed the impugned orders of appointment of a Receiver in respect of certain properties left by late Maharaja Balbhadra Singh on the basis of two applications filed by the legatees at two different times for appointment of a Receiver and for grant of temporary injunction. Being aggrieved, the objector Shri Krshna Singh has filed Misc. Appeal No. 39/81. The legatee have filed the connected Misc. Appeal No. 81/81 for modification of the main order of the Court below by including the excluded properties in the domain of Receiver.

       Held : The first application under section 269 of the Indian Succession Act, read with Order 40, Rule 1 and section 151 C.P.C. was filed on 19 – 5 – 1978 by the legatees for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the properties alleged to have been left by late Maharaja Balbhadra Singh. The second application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with sections 141 and 151 C.P.C. was filed by them on 5 – 1 – 1981 for restraining Shri Krishna Singh and others from alienating or squandering away the properties left by late Maharaja Balbhadra Singh. It appears that the Court below did not pass any order on the legatees application for appointment of a Receiver till the date of their second application for injunction. It does not appear that at any time after moving their second application for injunction any prayer was made by the legatees for orders on their – earlier application for appointment of Receiver. On the contrary, it appears that by filing their second application for grant of injuction, the legatees did not, by necessary implication, insist on appointment of a Receiver in pursuance of their earlier application filed on 19 – 5 – 1978 and expressed their willingness to have an order of injunction, in place of an order for appointment of a Receiver. The Court below should not have. therefore, passed its impugned order dated 11 – 5 – 198 for appointment of a Receiver and the consequential order dated 13 – 5 – 1981, appointing Shri T.N. Chaturvedi as Receiver of the disputed properties. Further, the disputed properties have not been shown to yield any income, except that of month rent of about Rs. 4,500/ – . In such a situation, the appointment of a Receiver does not appear just or reasonable, because the interest and share of the legatees can be safeguarded even without appointment of a Receiver.

       2. In their second application for injunction filed on 5 – 1 – 1981, the legatees only made a prayer for restraining Shri Krishna Singh and others from alienating or damaging the various movable and immovable properties of late Maharaja Balbhadra Singh situated at Datia and Seondha, besides restraining them from cutting or damaging the trees existing at Seondha fort. In the light of this prayer and the fact that the immovable properties left by late Maharaja Balbhadra Singh only yield an income of about Rs. 4,500/ – per month by way of rent and if codicil is ultimately found proved, the legatees would naturally be entitled to receive one – half share in the properties and their income, I am of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the parties are directed to maintain the status quo and Shri Krishna Singh is directed to furnish Bank guarantee for & sum, which may sufficiently cover the interest and share of the legatees in the profits arising out of immovable properties of late Maharaja Balbhadra Singh. Appeals disposed of.