Dismissed

K Gautam v. K Rama Krishna

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Nov 2021CMA/144/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil miscellaneous appeal regarding the appointment of a Court Receiver for suit properties, the court examined the jurisdictional requirements set in Meda Baby Reddy and Chelikam Rajamma. Finding that the defendant denied the plaintiff's title and no prima facie case for appointment was established, the court dismissed the appeal and retained the impugned order.

What the court decided

AI extract

K Gautam Vs K Rama Krishna — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

And

¶3

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶4

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.144 of 2021

¶5

ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

¶6

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 31.12.2019 in I.A.No.766 of 2018 in O.S.No.382 of 2014 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the request of the petitioner to appoint Court Receiver, to take possession of the suit schedule Items Nos.2 to 6, 11, 13, 15 and 17, to an extent of Ac.24.34 cents and Item No.1, the apartment with a direction to deposit the income into court or in alternative to direct the 2^nd respondent to deposit the income derived from the suit schedule item Nos.1 to 6, 11, 13, 15 and 17, was rejected.

¶7

The petitioner herein is a minor. The 2^nd petitioner is the mother of the 1^st petitioner. The 1^st respondent is the father and the 2^nd respondent is grandmother of the 1^st petitioner, while the 3^rd respondent is the maternal aunt.

¶8

Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of her contention, mainly relied upon by a Division Bench judgment of this court reported in Meda Baby Reddy v Akula Jyothi and another¹ , to contend that in a given set of circumstances, there is no bar to appoint a

¶9

1 2010 (6) ALD 453 (DB)

CPK, J & RNT, J

C.M.A.No.144 of 2021

Court Receiver. Paragraph 5 of the said judgment reads as under:

¶14

“In Chelikam Rajamma’s case (1993 (2) ALT 154 (DB), this court elaborately considered the circumstances under which a Receiver can be appointed. Making reference to leading decisions of Bombay, Madras and this Court, the Division Bench summarized the relevant principles of law as below:

¶15

(1) The appointment of receiver cannot be resorted to lightly without considering the entire facts and circumstances.

¶16

(2) The party seeking the appointment of receiver must make out a case that he or she was not only kept out of possession of the properties unauthorisedly, but the party in possession is indulging in acts of waste leading to the inference of incompetence;

¶17

(3) If, prima facie, the plaintiff has excellent chance of succeeding in the suit, there being no denial with regard to his or her share in the plaint schedule properties, the conduct of the opposite party in keeping the plaintiff out of possession will be a relevant consideration for directing the opposite party to deposit a sum of money approximately representing the value of the yield pertaining to the share of the plaintiff pending disposal of the suit. Even in such circumstances, a receiver should not be appointed to oust the possession of the opposite party from the joint family properties and safeguarding of the rights of the parties shall be twin objectives impelling the appointment of receiver.”

¶18

Relying upon Clause (3) of the observations in the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the property is bound to fall to the share of the 1^st plaintiff and there being no denial of the same by any of the defendants, it will be just and proper to deposit some money per month in favour of the 1^st petitioner for his education and other needs.

CPK, J & RNT, J

C.M.A.No.144 of 2021

A reading of the said finding would clearly show that the plaintiff should first show that he has an excellent chance of succeeding in the suit and there being no denial of his share in the plaint schedule property.

¶23

In order to establish as to whether the petitioner has an excellent chance of succeeding the suit and there being no denial with regard to his share, it will be proper for us to refer to the contents of the written statement filed by the 2^nd defendant. In paragraph 10 of the said written statement, it has been stated that items 1, 2 to 5, 11, 13, 15 and 17 of the plaint schedule properties alone belong to the 1^st defendant and they devolved upon the 2^nd defendant for her life and vested remainder to the minor 1^st plaintiff. It is also stated that the minor-1^st plaintiff gets these items after the lifetime of this defendant; those items are not liable for partition and there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file this suit. It is further stated in the written statement that the 2^nd plaintiff has no locus standi to be the guardian of minor 1^st plaintiff; the 2^nd plaintiff is a greedy woman and she has no respect towards her husband-1^st defendant and she harassed the 1^st defendant and made his life miserable.

¶24

In view of the averments in the written statement filed by the 2^nd defendant, it can be said without any hesitation that, prima facie case , as required for appointment of a

CPK, J & RNT, J

C.M.A.No.144 of 2021

receiver, has not been established. Hence, we see no grounds to interfere with the order impugned.

¶29

Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. As O.S.No.382 of 2014 is of the year 2014, the trial Court shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is needless to mention that both the parties shall cooperate for an early disposal of the suit. The trial court shall not be influenced with the observations, if any made in this appeal.

¶30

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶31

_________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶32

________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J

¶33

Date: 18-11-2021

¶34

Ksn

K Gautam v. K Rama Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K Gautam v. K Rama Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Nagamma, Vs Govind Badrinath

Yarru Pavani Vs Yarru Subba Rao

Shazeel Mohidheen Basha Vs Nazma

Chellarapu Surendra Kumar, Vs M/s.Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited

Bhavi Anuradha Rao Vs M/S Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited

M/S. Nova College of Engineerign and Another Vs Kumari Y.Sushma and Another