Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:
01. 02/2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA A.Nos.398 and 399 of 2013 in C.S.No.902 of 2008 Vasumathi vs M.R.Anbarasu FOR PETITIONER : PaisLobo FOR RESPONDENT : S.Sundar ORDER: VINOD K. SHARMA,J., A.No.398 of 2013: This application under Order XIV Rule 8 of the O.S.Rules r/w Order XL Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed with prayer to appoint a Receiver to manage and collect the income from the Schedule properties and deposit the same in the Court, after deducting the expenses for paying the Government Taxes, maintenance charges of the properties and his remuneration as may be fixed by this Honble Court. A.No.399 of 2013: This application has been moved to direct the defendants 1 and 2 to furnish a true account of income from the schedule properties item No.1 to 4 to the Court from the date of the applicant mother's death on 23.04.2007 till the appointment of the Receiver.
2. The plaintiff/applicant has filed suit for partition of suit property by meets and bounds for separate possession claiming 1/6th share. The defendant nos.1 & 2 are brothers of plaintiff/applicant and defendant nos.3 to 5 are sisters. The schedule mentioned properties 1 & 2 stand in the name of late Mr.Ramanujam, the father of the plaintiff/applicant and Item Nos.3 to 5 of the suit property are self acquired properties of late Mrs.Saratha, the mother of the plaintiff.
3. It is submitted, that the properties are to be inherited by the plaintiff/applicant in equal shares, therefore the plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession. No written statement is filed.
4. It is further submitted, that portion of Item No.3 and Item No.1 and many portions consisting of houses and shops have been let out to various tenants renting out income of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) and above. That the schedule property Item No.2 is situated at Mecherry Village, Vellore District, which is an agricultural land and the income fetched from the agricultural yields is also appropriated by defendants 1 and 2, who have not given account for the income on the property, nor gave any share of the income to the plaintiff/applicant or to her sisters.
5. It is stated in the affidavit, that the prayer (b) of the plaint needs to be amended by including the words and mesne profits. It is submitted, that though defendant nos.1 & 2 are taking care of the schedule properties, as admitted in reply to lawyers notice, they have failed to give any accounts, nor have shown any interest to share the income.
6. It is submitted in the affidavit, that to know the exact income from the properties and to take charge of property and to manage the same during the pendency of the suit, appointment of Receiver is absolutely necessary to collect the incomes from the properties and deposit in the Court after deducting necessary Taxes and maintenance charges and the fee so fixed by the Receiver. It is the case of the plaintiff/applicant, that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in appointing a Receiver. That defendant no.3, since died, her legal representatives have been brought on record as defendant nos.6 to 8.
7. On consideration, I find that the applications to be totally misconceived. The object of appointing a Receiver is to preserve the subject matter of litigation pending decision of the Court. The Receiver can only be appointed when it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so and such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in an unregulated manner and has to be exercised judicially and cautiously and in accordance with the legal principles on a consideration of the whole circumstances of the case. The appointment of Receiver is very harsh remedy, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff, that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, is misconceived.
8. The jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver can be exercised only in extreme case with atmost care and caution. While appointing Receiver, the Court does not finally decide on merit of the case and Receiver cannot be appointed merely because it is expedient to do so, nor merely because it will do no harm to other parties. The provisions of Order XL Rule 1 cannot be invoked to disturb the settled position.
9. It is admitted case of the plaintiff/applicant, that mother of the parties died on 23.04.2007 and this arrangement is going on since then. No ground therefore is made out to change this condition merely because the plaintiff/applicant needs such information for putting up claim. It is for the plaintiff/applicant to prove the case and Receiver cannot be appointed merely to help the plaintiff/applicant to know what claim she is entitled to.
10. Both the applications can be said to be totally misconceived. The pleadings in the affidavit do not make out any case for invoking the provisions of Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint Receiver.
11. No merits. Dismissed. No costs. 01.02.2013 Index: Yes Internet: Yes ar VINOD K. SHARMA,J., ar A.Nos.398 and 399 of 2013 in C.S.No.902 o”
01. 02.2013