1993 (3) TMI 368 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of a receiver for the joint family properties.
2. Prima facie case for plaintiff's share in the joint family properties.
3. Grounds for appointing a receiver under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Appointment of a Receiver for the Joint Family Properties:
The plaintiff sought the appointment of a receiver for the joint family properties, claiming that the defendants were depriving her of her share of income and that there was a risk of waste and damage to the properties. The trial court granted this request, but the defendants appealed the decision.

The court noted that under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appointment of a receiver is a discretionary matter for the court, which should not be exercised arbitrarily. The court must consider the entire circumstances of the case and ensure that the appointment is just and convenient.

2. Prima Facie Case for Plaintiff's Share in the Joint Family Properties:
The plaintiff claimed a 1/4 share in the joint family properties, which included agricultural lands, a well, and a residential house. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's mother had relinquished her rights in the properties in favor of the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-.

The court emphasized that for the appointment of a receiver, the plaintiff must prove a prima facie case with an excellent chance of succeeding in the suit and show that the property is in danger of being wasted. The court found that the plaintiff had not made a sufficient case for the appointment of a receiver, as there was no proof of waste or mismanagement by the defendants.

3. Grounds for Appointing a Receiver Under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The court reviewed the legal principles governing the appointment of receivers, citing various precedents. It highlighted that the appointment should not be made lightly and should be based on proof of emergency, danger, or loss requiring immediate action.

The court referred to the case of Govind v. Vallabh Rao, which stated that special circumstances must be proven before a receiver can be appointed in a partition suit. The plaintiff must show an excellent chance of succeeding in the suit and that the property is in danger of being wasted.

The court also referred to the case of Krishan v. Nani Maruvalamma, which emphasized that a receiver should not be appointed without proof of waste or mismanagement. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not met these requirements.

Conclusion:
The court found that the trial judge had appointed a receiver without proper assessment of the facts and circumstances. The plaintiff had not demonstrated a prima facie case of waste or mismanagement of the properties by the defendants, nor had she shown an emergency or danger requiring immediate action.

The court directed the defendants to deposit Rs. 12,000/- annually during the pendency of the suit, starting from the date of filing I.A.No. 182 of 1990. This amount would be kept in fixed deposits in a nationalized bank. The Letters Patent Appeal and the C.M.A. were disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.