The court ruled that a trial court may appoint a receiver in a suit for injunction to prevent potential chaos, especially when possession claims are contested, without requiring a specific application for such appointment.

1. This group of six appeals arises out of the order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay on 2nd November, 1996 in Notice of Motion No. 2608 of 1996 in Suit No. 2784 of 1996.

2. The facts have been stated in details in the impugned order and, therefore, I would recapitualate briefly the essential and necessary facts for disposal of these appeals only.

3. The disputed property comprises of gala Nos. 1, 48, 68, 15, 16, 17, 18, 26 on the ground floor, all galas on the entire first floor and gala Nos. 201, 216 to 226 on the 2nd floor of Bezzola Commercial Complex, Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai. Mulji Umershi Shah, the plaintiff and appellant in Appeal No. 39 of 1997 filed a suit before the City Civil Court on 24th May, 1996 initially impleading the State of Maharashtra, Paradesia Builders Private Limited and the Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay as defendants Nos. 1 to 3 respectively. Thereafter the defendants Nos. 4 to 24 have been impleaded in the suit. The crux of plaintiff's relief in the suit was that defendant No. 2 Paradesia Buildings Private Limited is not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff or interfere and / or disturb his possession in respect of the suit premises and decree for permanent injunction accordingly.
The basis of the plaintiff's claim rests on the averment that he had 25% share in the building Bozzola Commercial Complex built by defendant No. 2. The plaintiff averred that the disputed property built on the land originally owned by one Shri Khatau Bhanji who died on 18th April, 1967 leaving behind his wife Lilavati (defendant No. 4) and minor son Kiritkumar. The deceased left behind a will dated 9th July 1966 and the executors mentioned in the will were his wife Smt. Lilavati, her brother, two partners of the deceased and Jayantilal. The dispute arose between the executors which resulted in filing of the suit before this Court on the original side. In that suit Court Receiver was appointed who came in possession. The plaintiff claims that he helped Smt. Lilavati in conduct of the said litigation and in lieu thereof Lilavati executed writing on 29th March, 1971 stipulating that the suit plot would go to the plaintiff after discharge of the Court Receiver. On 15th December, 1977 the suit was dismissed and Court Receiver was directed to hand over possession to Lilavati. An agreement was executed, according to the plaintiff, with Lilavati on 1st May, 1978 confirming plaintiff's status as a lessee in respect of the suit land and factory standing on the part of the land. By the said agreement the plaintiff was permitted to develop the property and raise new construction at his costs on the terms and conditions mentioned therein and to create lease in respect of the new construction in the suit land. There was an agreement for lease of the suit land dated 15th April, 1978 between Smt. Lilavati and Gala Construction for 98 years on monthly rent of Rs. 6000/- and other terms and the said lease agreement was cancelled on 22nd January 1981. The plaintiff avers that vide agreement dated 22nd January 1981 between Smt. Lilavati and M/s. Gala Construction wherein the plaintiff was confirming party, his claim of entitlement to 25% of the total built up area and the development on the said property free of cost was confirmed. The plaintiff has further set out a case that on 20th May, 1981 Smt. Lilavati executed an agreement of lease in favour of the defendant No. 2 Pardesia Buildings Pvt. Ltd. On 11th September, 1981 the lease deed wa