Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Appointment of Receiver in Partition Suit - Main Points and Insights:
The primary purpose of appointing a receiver is to protect the property from waste, misappropriation, or damage during the pendency of a partition suit, especially where there are significant financial transactions or risks of depletion of assets. For example, ["CHHABI GHOSH & ORS. vs NITA GHOSH & ORS. - Calcutta"] states, In a suit for partition with accounts it is necessary to protect the estate particularly where there is huge day to day transaction in cash on regular basis. Similarly, ["Dilip Kr. Prasad @ Dileep Kr. Prasad and others vs Dinesh Kumar Prasad @ Dinesh Prasad and others - Calcutta"] notes that the court found the grounds for appointment not sufficiently established, emphasizing the need for a high ground for such an appointment.
Courts emphasize that appointment should be based on clear, justifiable reasons, such as imminent risk of property wastage, misappropriation, or injury. ["Amalendu Ray v. Arati Ray and Others - Calcutta"] mentions, one of the principles for appointment of receivers that the Court is satisfied that the case demands immediate action and protection of the properties. The order must be just and convenient, not arbitrary or whimsical ["Amalendu Ray v. Arati Ray and Others - Calcutta"].
The appointment of a receiver is not automatic upon filing a suit; it requires a prima facie case showing necessity, such as misappropriation or risk of property damage. ["BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD-ELECTRONICS DIVISION vs WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD AND ANR - 2023 Supreme(Online)(CAL) 6043"] states, receiver can be appointed only for protection of rights or for prevention of injury and the appointment of receiver cannot be resorted lightly without considering the entire facts and circumstances.
In partition suits, courts are cautious about appointing receivers, especially when the properties are jointly owned and in possession of co-sharers, unless there is clear evidence of mismanagement, wastage, or sale of joint property without partition. ["Pallab Bhattacharjee and Others v. Srimanta Majumder - Gauhati"] criticizes the improper consideration of the dispute as a mere suit for partition and highlights that the appointment of a receiver in a suit deprives a person, who is in possession of the suit land under property, to enjoy the said property during the tenure of receivership.
Several cases highlight that receivers are appointed to safeguard assets, prevent wastage, or facilitate accounts, but such orders must be backed by factual and legal justification. ["Md. Humayun Kabir VS Sk. Arif Ali - Calcutta"] notes, receiver can be appointed only for protection of rights or for prevention of injury and the appointment of receiver cannot be resorted lightly.
Analysis and Conclusion:
Courts consistently stress that the appointment of a receiver in partition suits is a measure of last resort, to be granted only when there is a clear risk of property wastage, misappropriation, or damage, and not merely for preservation of pecuniary interests or convenience. The decision hinges on the facts, such as evidence of mismanagement or sale of joint property without proper partition, and whether the case demonstrates a prima facie need for protection ["CHHABI GHOSH & ORS. vs NITA GHOSH & ORS. - Calcutta"], ["Dilip Kr. Prasad @ Dileep Kr. Prasad and others vs Dinesh Kumar Prasad @ Dinesh Prasad and others - Calcutta"].
The legal principle remains that receivers should not be appointed arbitrarily; their appointment must be just and convenient, with a thorough assessment of the circumstances ["Amalendu Ray v. Arati Ray and Others - Calcutta"]. Moreover, in cases where joint properties are involved, courts are cautious to avoid prejudicing the rights of co-sharers, especially if possession is lawful and there is no evidence of misappropriation ["Pallab Bhattacharjee and Others v. Srimanta Majumder - Gauhati"].
In summary, the appointment of a receiver in a suit for partition depends on establishing a genuine necessity—such as risk of property wastage, misappropriation, or sale of joint assets—supported by factual and legal grounds. Courts tend to reject applications where no such risks are demonstrated, emphasizing that such orders are extraordinary and must be justified thoroughly ["Dilip Kr. Prasad @ Dileep Kr. Prasad and others vs Dinesh Kumar Prasad @ Dinesh Prasad and others - Calcutta"], ["CHHABI GHOSH & ORS. vs NITA GHOSH & ORS. - Calcutta"].
References:
In family disputes over shared property, partition suits are common in India, often leading to prolonged litigation. A critical interim relief in such cases is the appointment of a receiver to manage and preserve the property. But when does a court step in to appoint one? This blog explores the legal framework, criteria, and judicial discretion involved in appointing a receiver in a partition suit, helping co-owners understand their options.
The question of appointment of receiver in suit for partition arises frequently when co-owners fear mismanagement, waste, or exclusion from property benefits. Governed by Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), courts exercise broad discretionary powers to appoint a receiver. This provision allows courts to safeguard property from being wasted, dissipated, or otherwise dealt with in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the parties [
#PartitionSuit, #ReceiverAppointment, #CPCLaw
The present challenge arises out of an order appointing a receiver passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent in a partition suit. 2. ... Partition Suit No. 180 of 2023 to the effect that the appellants shall maintain proper accounts of the restaurant cum bar business being run from the suit property during pendency of the suit and furnish quarterly audited statements of accounts verified by an approved chartered accountant in the trial ... Learned counsel further....
For defendant no.8 The Court:- By an order dated 8th May, 2025, directions were given for filing of affidavits in an application inter alia for appointment of Receiver filed in a suit for declaration, injunction, partition and administration ... In a suit for partition with accounts it is necessary to protect the estate particularly where there is huge day to day transaction in cash on regular basis. ... Appointment of Receiver is necessary to save ....
This Court, therefore, does not find any illegality in the order appointing receiver on an application for injunction on the above settled legal parameters. 3. A suit is filed for declaration of share, partition and separation thereof. ... In the instant case, the Court found that parties are not adhering to the Rule of Law and has acted contrary to the preliminary decree in dealing with the joint properties being the subject matter of the partition suit. ... One of the principles for appointm....
Therefore, plaintiffs sought for appointment of receiver. 18. Admittedly, properties are pertaining to the same family. ... and also admitted that they are not receiving any rents or deposits from the tenants and at the same time opposed the appointment of receiver to collect the rents. ... The trial Court referred so many Judgments, in which it was clearly laid down that receiver can be appointed only for protection of rights or for prevention of injury and the appointment of #HL_STAR....
and also admitted that they are not receiving any rents or deposits from the tenants and at the same time opposed the appointment of receiver to collect the rents. ... Therefore, plaintiffs sought for appointment of receiver. 18. Admittedly, properties are pertaining to the same family. ... The trial Court referred so many Judgments, in which it was clearly laid down that receiver can be appointed only for protection of rights or for prevention of injury and the appointment of #HL_STAR....
Thereafter, an application under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being Paper No.31A1, was moved by the petitioner–defendant no.1 seeking appointment of a receiver in respect of the suit property. ... and that the application for appointment of receiver would be considered only after disposal of the temporary injunction application. ... The case of the petitioner–defendant no.1, as unfolded from the present writ petition, is that an original suit f....
Thereafter, an application under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being Paper No.31A1, was moved by the petitioner–defendant no.1 seeking appointment of a receiver in respect of the suit property. ... and that the application for appointment of receiver would be considered only after disposal of the temporary injunction application. ... The case of the petitioner–defendant no.1, as unfolded from the present writ petition, is that an original suit f....
He submits that merely because a Receiver has been appointed by the Court, the same cannot be a ground to deny the appointment of a Local Commissioner inasmuch as the mandate of the Receiver shall stand terminated once the Executing Court executes the decree. ... In terms of the Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the possession of the Suit Property falling in the share of the petitioner herein is in the hands of the Receiver. ... The above Execution Petition has been filed by the petition....
The appellants filed a suit for the partition of the joint family properties some time in 1963. ... In the latter suit, the receiver appointed by the Calcutta High Court was also appointed receiver in respect of the properties in dispute in the suit filed before the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad. ... It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the order passed for the appointment of a receiver in a pending suit doe....
The plaintiff has filed the present application praying for injunction and for appointment of Receiver. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for declaration of the shares of the parties in the suit properties, partition, preliminary decree and other allied prayers. ... As regard the appointment of receiver, by an order dated 14th January, 2021, this Court had appointed Receiver and the Receiver has submitted repor....
This fact is also not in dispute that the same plot, on which occurrence had taken place, was jointly purchased by the appellant and husband of the informant, who is P.W.1 Ram Sagar Pd. Yadav. In the said partition suit, the appellant had filed a petition for appointment of receiver. It is clarified that Ram Sagar Pd. Yadav is the own brother of the appellant (Ramesh Kumar). The evidence has also come that just one year prior to the occurrence, the appellant had filed a partition suit, which was pending in the court of Sub-Judge.
Appointment of receiver is a stringent matter and it becomes more stringent in a partition suit. Patri Devi @ Girja Devi & Anr vs. Ganesh Lal Pradhan & Ors., reported in 2003(2) PUR 864 and it was held that in Bihar Subordinate Judiciary in almost all the partition suits a petition is invariably filed for appointment of a receiver, but most of them do not meet the above mentioned five ingredients required for the purpose of appointment of receiver, due to which precious time is wasted.
I must observe here that in Bihar Sub-ordinate Judiciary in almost in all the Partition suits a petition is invariably filed for appointment of a Receiver and such petitions are not meeting the ingredients required for the purpose of appointment of a Receiver, and by that way times are being wasted. In the present case from the pleadings it could not be found that there was any definite case of unity of title when both the parties indulged in separate dealings. The purchasers are admittedly in possession in their purchased properties which were also included within the suit itself and those ....
Even a stranger can seek appointment of receiver, if it is just and convenient. It is not necessary that in order to obtain an order of appointment of receiver in a suit for partition, the applicant must satisfy the characteristic of a co-sharer. To support his contention, Mr. Tandon referred to the decisions in S. B. Induatries v United Bank of India, AIR 1978 All 189 ; Sree Venkataramana Temple Board v C. Manjunatha Kamath and Ors. , AIR 1974 Kar 59 and ICICI v Karnataka Ball Bearing Corporation Limited, 1999 (7) SCC 488. According to him, having regard to the facts and c....
An application for appointment of a fresh Receiver is not barred by law, particularly, when I find that new facts and circumstances have arisen in the instant suit. There is no inflexible rule for appointment of a Receiver, particularly, in a suit for partition and accounts in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
