Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4605
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J
PANKAJ BARADIYA AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
RAJKUMAR AND OTHERS – Respondent
MISC. APPEAL No. 2828 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Brijesh Garg
For the Respondents:
The court ruled that the mere need for rent collection does not justify the appointment of a receiver amidst ownership disputes, emphasizing the necessity for resolution of these disputes first.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 41 Rule 1 - Appointment of receiver - The appellants sought to appoint a receiver on the grounds of ownership disputes and rental collection - The trial court denied the appointment, requiring more than mere collection of rent for such an order - Reliance on previous case law found irrelevant due to differing fact patterns. (Paras 6, 8)
(B) Property law - Ownership disputes related to wills - The court noted the necessity for proof of ownership via will as opposed to merely seeking a receiver for potential rental interests - The appellants’ admission of possession by the respondent influences current claims and maintenance of those interests. (Paras 2, 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a trial court’s refusal to appoint a receiver for a property claimed by both parties, stemming from an alleged bequest by the deceased owner. The plaintiff claims ownership via a will, contested by the defendants, who argued their ownership through a sale deed.
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly concluded that appointment of a receiver was unwarranted merely for rent collection, given the existing disputes over property ownership and tenant possession.
Issues: The core issue was whether a receiver should be appointed in light of ongoing ownership disputes regarding a will and prior agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that mere collection of rent does not justify appointing a receiver; substantial ownership disputes must be resolved first before such steps can be taken, emphasizing the context and particulars of prior cases cited.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts underlying the property dispute and ownership claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI th ON THE 16 OF JULY, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 2828 of 2025 PANKAJ BARADIYA AND OTHERS Versus RAJKUMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Brijesh Garg, learned counsel for the appellant.
ORDER The appellants have filed this appeal under Order 40 Rule 1 of CPC against the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by 2nd District Judge, Ratlam in RCS-A/278/19 thereby the application filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 and 2 under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC for appointment of receiver has been rejected.
2. The short facts giving rise to the case are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is the son of the deceased Basant Kumarji and Smt. Pushplata, who died in 1987 and 2004 respectively. Late Pushplata was the owner and title holder of the suit property i.e. House No.101 New Road, Ratlam which was purchased from one Thakur Dilip Singh vide registered sale deed dated 01.11.1969. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed a civil suit before the trial court stating therein that the suit property was bequeathed in his favour by a will by Late Pushplata and he came to know that the defendants have been trying to sell the suit property, thus, he filed the suit before the learned trial Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA court.
3. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/appellants herein filed their written statement. In para 2 of the written statement, the possession of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein has specifically been admitted by the appellant. Other than this, the written statement was in denial of pleadings in the plaint.
4. The appellants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC before the trial court for appointment of receiver. It has been stated in the application that 75% of the suit property is of their ownership. The appellants further stated that on partition of the same they will be entitled for rent paid by the tenants of the said portion of the suit property. Thus, it has been stated by them that they are entitled for receiving rent and for ensuring that proper rent is collected and also proper accounts with respect to the same are maintained, a receiver in terms of Order 40 Rule 1 should be appointed.
5. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a reply to the said application and has stated that the appellants have based their claim on a forged sale deed. He stated that in fact the entire property is of his ownership and title in view of the will executed by its sole owner -Smt. Pusplata Devi.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in such a case where the dispute of ownership is present and rent is being paid by the tenants of the disputed property then receiver should be appointed. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kasturi Bai Vs. Anguri Chaudhary , AIR 2001 SC 1361 .
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record of Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA the case file.
8. Learned trial court while considering the submission of the appellants has rightly observed that only for collection of rent and its deposit in the Court, a receiver is not required to be appointed. In the considered view of this Court also, appointment of receiver cannot be made in such a mechanical manner. The reliance as placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of Kasturi Bai (supra) is in fact misplaced. In that case, the facts were somewhat different. In that case a receiver was appointed by the trial court who was one of the contesting party. In such circumstances, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a third party should have been appointed. In this case, the facts are completely different. There are two contesting wills which have to be proved by the respective parties. The possession of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is admitted by the appellants in their written statement and existence of tenants is als
