1948 (9) TMI 20 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Appointment of a receiver in a partition suit involving joint family property.
2. Right of alleged trustees to apply for the appointment of a receiver.
3. Interpretation of Order 40, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the appointment of a receiver.
4. Applicability of case law in determining the appointment of a receiver in a partition suit.
5. Consideration of appointing a receiver based on the deteriorating condition of the property.
6. Determination of the party to be appointed as a receiver in the case.

Analysis:
1. The case involves an appeal against the appointment of a receiver in a partition suit concerning joint family property worth substantial value. The suit was initiated by the deceased patriarch, and a preliminary decree for partition had been passed before his demise.

2. The alleged trustees, claiming to be legal representatives of the deceased, applied for the appointment of a receiver to protect the joint family property. The court considered their interest in the preservation of the property, even though they were not yet parties to the suit, and allowed the application for the receiver.

3. The court analyzed Order 40, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and determined that the provision does not restrict the appointment of a receiver only at the request of a party to the suit. It acknowledged the discretion of the court to act in the interest of property preservation, even on the application of interested parties.

4. Various case laws were cited to support the appointment of a receiver in a partition suit, emphasizing the need to safeguard the property from deterioration. The court distinguished previous judgments based on the specific facts of the case and concluded that the appointment of a receiver was justified in this instance.

5. The deteriorating condition of the property under the appellants' management, coupled with concerns about deliberate waste due to disputes over the deceased's will, led the court to find it just and convenient to appoint a receiver to prevent further damage to the joint family assets.

6. Regarding the selection of the receiver, the court decided against appointing any party to the suit due to existing strained relationships. Instead, it sought suggestions for a neutral third party acceptable to both sides, allowing time for the parties to propose a suitable candidate before making a final decision on the receiver's appointment.