The civil miscellaneous appeal was dismissed by the Single Judge. The court held that without an allegation of waste or screening of properties, there was no case for appointing a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 CPC to collect rents.
Civil miscellaneous appeal dismissed; appointment of receiver application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.388 of 2014
Dated: 19.06.2014
Between: Smt. Vinoda and others. and N. Narsamma (died) and others.
.. Appellants
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants: Mr. K. Venumadhav
Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr. Hari Sreedhar
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of order dated 03.01.2014 in I.A.No.470 of 2010 in O.S.No.496 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.
I have heard Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr. Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The appellants have filed the above-mentioned suit for partition. Along with the suit, they have also filed I.A.No.470 of 2010 under Order 40 Rule 1 of C.P.C. for appointment of receiver to collect rents in respect of items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties. After a detailed hearing of the case, the lower Court has dismissed the application.
It is not the pleaded case of the appellants that the respondents are indulging in waste or screening of the properties or income. Therefore, as rightly held by the lower Court, the appellants have not made out a case for appointment of receiver. In the event of their success in the suit, the appellants are entitled to claim mesne profits. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the well-considered order of the lower Court.
The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed, subject to the observations made hereinbefore.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil miscellaneous appeal, C.M.A.M.P.No.448 of 2014 shall stand disposed of infructuous.
_________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
19th June, 2014 IBL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appointment of a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of CPC is justified in the absence of allegation of waste or screening of properties by respondents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Vinoda and others
N. Narsamma and others
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
