http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 1466 of 2001

PETITIONER:

KASTURI BAI & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

ANGURI CHAUDHARY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/02/2001

BENCH:

D.P. Mohapatra & S.N. Variava

JUDGMENT:

D E R

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

Leave granted.

The defendant in the civil suit No.2-A of 1993 of the

Court of Additional District Judge, Shahdol, has filed this

appeal assailing the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High

Court on 20th June, 2000 in miscellaneous appeal No.1191 of

1998. In the said order the High Court ordered appointment

of a Receiver to be in charge of the suit properties with

other consequential directions. The relevant portion of the

order reads as follows:

As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal

succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.8.1998

is hereby set aside. The Trial Court is directed to require

both the parties to suggest an agreed name of a person

within fifteen days from the receipt of the record and a

copy of this order, for his appointment as a receiver in the

case. In case, they fail to do so, within the time fixed by

the Trial Court, the Trial Court shall be free to appoint a

person of integrity as the receiver of the suit property,

who is well conversant with the legal procedures and is

capable of maintaining true and honest accounts of the suit

property during the pendency of the suit. The said

appointment of the receiver shall be made initially for a

period of two years and it shall be extended by the Trial

Court on an application being filed by the receiver or the

appellant, in case, by that time the civil suit remains

pending before it. The trial court is further directed that

it shall, after the appointment of the receiver, try to

dispose of the Civil Suit within a period of one year from

the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Trial Court

shall, from time to time, call for the accounts from the

receiver so appointed and supervise his work and in case,

the work or accounts of the receiver is found unsatisfactory

by the Trial Court, it shall be free to appoint a new

receiver.

The respondent herein filed the aforementioned suit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 3

impleading the appellants herein as defendants. The

plaintiff prayed for a decree for partition and separate

possession of the suit properties. The suit properties are

structures in occupation of tenants.

The case of the plaintiff, shortly stated, was that the

suit properties were the exclusive properties of late

Kishore Chand her father and husband of appellant No.1.

Appellants 2 and 3 are the sons of Virender Kumar, a nephew

of Kishore Chand. According to the plaintiff neither

Virender Kumar nor his sons (appellants 2 and 3 herein) have

any right title and interest in the suit properties. Taking

advantage of the old age of her mother they have kept her

under their clutches and have been enjoying the suit

properties. The plaintiff further alleged that defendants 2

and 3 have been collecting and appropriating the rent paid

by the tenants without giving her any share therein. They

are also inducting new tenants and collecting premium money

from them. The plaintiff also alleged that defendants 2 and

3 are making new constructions spending the money collected

from the tenants as rent. On these allegations the

plaintiff filed the application under Order XL Rule 1 C.P.C.

for appointment of a receiver. She had also filed an

application seeking interim injunction against the

defendants not to change the status quo of the suit property

and not to alienate the same.

The defendants refuted the allegations made in the

petition for appointment of receiver mainly on the ground

that they have been in pos