1977 (11) TMI 146 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Removal of the appellant from the post of Receiver.
2. Validity of the expenses incurred by the appellant as Receiver.
3. Powers and duties of a Receiver, particularly when the Receiver is also a Mutwalli.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Removal of the appellant from the post of Receiver:
The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed an application for the removal of the appellant from the post of Receiver, alleging that the appellant had violated the court's order by mismanaging the property and misappropriating its income. The court below found that the appellant had not deposited any amount in court as directed and had spent the income for his own purposes, leading to his removal from the post of Receiver. However, the High Court set aside this order, emphasizing that the failure to obtain court permission before incurring expenses was not sufficient ground for removal. The case was remanded for fresh consideration of the appellant's accounts and the application for his removal.

2. Validity of the expenses incurred by the appellant as Receiver:
The appellant claimed that the expenses incurred were legitimate and related to his duties as Mutwalli. The court below did not properly scrutinize these accounts. The High Court acknowledged that while the appellant should have obtained prior court approval for these expenses, such actions were implicit in the order appointing him as Receiver. The court directed that the appellant's accounts be examined afresh to determine their validity.

3. Powers and duties of a Receiver, particularly when the Receiver is also a Mutwalli:
The High Court discussed the dual role of the appellant as both Mutwalli and Receiver. It noted that the appointment of a Receiver generally includes management and preservation of the property, even if not explicitly stated. The court held that the functions of the Mutwalli merged into those of the Receiver upon appointment. The Receiver was expected to manage the property and perform necessary duties, including repairs and maintenance, with prior court approval. The court clarified that the appellant was entitled to the remuneration fixed by the court for the Receiver's role, not additional amounts claimed as Mutwalli.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order appointing a new Receiver, and remanded the case for fresh consideration of the appellant's accounts and the application for his removal. The court directed that the suit be disposed of expeditiously and that the parties bear their own costs.