ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 28.11.2024 in I.A.No.2602 of 2024 in O.S.No.319 of 2024 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the application filed under Section 151 of CPC was allowed.

2. The singular contention raised by Sri Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the relief claimed in the impugned interlocutory application shows that the singular direction prayed for was to deposit half of the rent amount in respect of petition schedule ‘A to H’ properties therein in the bank account of respondent herein or to the credit of the suit until final adjudication of the rights of the parties. The trial Court passed order beyond the relief claimed by appointing Receiver and therefore, the said order is bad in law. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ganapati Madhav Sawant v. Dattur Madhav Sawant1.

1 (2008) 3 SCC 183

3. Sounding at contra note, Ms. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Vishnu Damodar Solankar v. S. Purandara Lakshmi Janardana Joisa2 and judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in the case of Ravi Lakshmaiah v. Nagamothu Lakshmi S. Ramadoss3 and urged that in view of these judgments even if relief is not specifically claimed in the present case, the trial Court is justified in appointment of Receiver.

4. The learned counsel for the parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

5. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apposite to look into the relevant part of the impugned order which reads thus:

“10. As seen from the pleadings of both the parties, petitioner is claiming that he invested the amount along with the respondent for the purchase of petition schedule ‘A to H’ properties and developed same. On the other hand, respondent disputed the same stating that petitioner has no financial capacity and only his name is incorporated in the sale deeds. In fact, respondent himself paid the entire sale consideration, however, he handed over the amounts to show that cheques are issued on the name of the plaintiff in some of the transactions. In the present case, both the parties not filed the original documents and only filed copies of the said sale deeds. Even as per the admission of the respondent, name of the petitioner is shown in the sale deeds and

2 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1830

3 1970 SCC OnLine AP 44

development agreements as a co-purchaser. Though respondent contended that petitioner has no financial capacity and petitioner has not paid any amount and in fact, he has paid amount in cash to petitioner and see that cheques are issued on the name of the petitioner. Since the name of the petitioner is found in all the sale deeds under which schedule ‘A to H’ properties are purchased as co-purchaser and in view of Sections 3 to 4 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, respondent is not permitted to claim exclusive ownership over the suit schedule property. Therefore, this Court can safely conclude that both the petitioner and respondent are the joint owners of the petition schedule 'A to H' properties.

11. In the case on hand, further both the parties admitted that all the petition schedule 'A to H' properties are let out to various tenants and entire properties are in the occupation of the said tenants. As rightly contended by the counsel for the respondent, petitioner simply claimed that each property is fetching rent, but no proof like statement or the receipts issued to the tenants or any other material in support of the quantum of rent paid by each tenant in respect of petition schedule 'A to H' properties is filed. Therefore, in the absence of such material, this Court is unable to conclude what is total amount getting as rent from petition schedule 'A to H' properties. When the learned counsel for the respon