Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Usha Subramaniam v. Cdr. Daljit Kumar Bhandari

Delhi High Court

Apr 25, 1994

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Judgment Summary — Application for Appointment of Receiver (House No. 224, Jor Bagh)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the property bearing House No. 224, Jor Bagh, New Delhi.

The basic factual matrix set out in the opinion is as follows: the suit property was owned by late Shri G.L. Bhandari who died on 18 December 1958, leaving behind his wife Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari, mother Smt. Kulwanti, two daughters (plaintiffs 1 & 2), and three sons including Cdr. Daljit Kumar Bhandari (defendant No. 1). Subsequent deaths of other family members are recorded (Smt. Kulwanti on 18.12.65; Shri Dalip Kumar Bhandari on 29.4.1978). After Shri G.L. Bhandari's death, Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari filed Suit No. 68/59 seeking declaration of ownership; the suit was decreed in her favour and the property was mutated in her name.

In terms of a lease dated 15 December 1988, the property was let by Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari through her attorney (defendant No. 5) to Dr. Hans Jurgen Axer, initially for three years with an option to renew. The lessee remained in possession beyond the initial term and, by letter dated 30 November 1993, purported to exercise the option to extend the lease with rent increases; the lease was stated to be renewable up to 31 December 1995.

The present application seeks appointment of a Receiver over the suit property. After hearing submissions and perusing affidavits and documents, the Court appointed joint Receivers — Smt. Usha Subramaniam (plaintiff No. 1) and Cdr. Daljit Kumar Bhandari (defendant No. 1) — and directed them to open a joint account in a nationalised bank, deposit rent receipts there, maintain accounts, and pay taxes and necessary expenses from that account. The application was disposed of and the parties were directed to bear their own costs. The order concludes with "NMPetition allowed."

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a Receiver should be appointed over the suit property under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 and Section 151 CPC.
Whether the defendant who claims to be executor of an alleged Will can assert an exclusive right to preserve the suit property in the absence of probate or letters of administration (having regard to Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act and relevant authorities).
Whether the plaintiffs have a prima facie case sufficient to justify appointment of a Receiver, especially when the property is in possession of a lessee.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant No. 1 (as presented by Mr. Banerjee)

Submitted that Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari was the absolute owner and had executed a Will dated 7 August 1974 making defendants 1–4 beneficiaries; defendant No. 1 had been named the executor and had applied for probate (Probate Petition No. 55/1991).
Contended the plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in the estate and therefore the plaintiffs' application was not maintainable.
Argued that the testator’s wishes (executor appointment) must be honoured and that the executor could not be removed except through probate proceedings; reliance was placed on Calcutta and Andhra Pradesh High Court decisions.
Submitted a Receiver should be appointed only if plaintiff shows a prima facie very good chance of success; here plaintiffs lacked such a prima facie case.
Pointed out that the property was in the possession of the lessee, so there was no justification for appointing a Receiver; relied on precedents from this Court and Bombay High Court.

Defendant No. 5 (as presented by Mr. Chetan Sharma)

Reiterated submissions of defendant No. 1.
Drew attention to an earlier order (20 December 1991) restraining alienation/letting without court permission and obliging parties to maintain accounts; asserted compliance by defendant No. 5, who filed an affidavit on 16 September 1993 detailing income and expenditure and handing over the balance to defendant No. 1.
Argued that because the immovable property fetched regular rent and there was no dissipation, appointment of a Receiver was unnecessary; relied on Madras High Court and Delhi High Court authorities.

Plaintiffs (as presented by Ms. Mahajan)

Argued that late Shri G.L. Bhandari left no Will and plaintiffs, being daughters, are entitled to a share in the suit property.
Contended the decree in Suit No. 68/59 was obtained by fraud and therefore could be questioned at any stage; relied on Supreme Court authorities concerning decrees obtained by fraud.
Submitted that defendants could not be permitted to use an unprobated Will; relied on Section 213 of the Succession Act and Supreme Court authority (Hem Nolini Judah) to contend that no executor can establish rights until probate or letters are obtained.
Pointed to defendant No.1's extended absence abroad and to affidavits of defendant No.5 (27 July 1993 and 16 September 1993) which, she said, failed to adequately explain expenditures and alleged tax deposits; argued this justified appointment of a Receiver in the interest of justice.

Defendants 2, 3 and 4 (as presented by Mr. Danial Latifi)

Submitted that the suit property was valuable and could fetch substantial sums if placed under a Receiver, and their combined share exceeded defendant No. 1's share; therefore the property should not remain solely under defendant No. 1's control.
Noted defendant No. 1's status as an NRI and argued he was not effectively managing the property; an affidavit (defendant No. 2) supported the contention that defendant No. 1 was largely absent from Delhi and a Receiver should be appointed to take possession and remove tenants for sale.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bali Ram Dote v. Bhupendra Nath Banerjee, AIR 1978 Calcutta 559	Cited by defendant No. 1 to support the contention that an executor should not be removed absent appropriate probate proceedings.	The Court noted the reliance but, applying Section 213 and higher authority, held that without probate an executor's exclusive right to preserve the property could not be accepted.
Sri Raja Kakarlapudi Venkata Sudarsana Sundara Narasayyamma Guru (died) v. Andhra Bank Ltd., AIR 1960 AP 273	Cited by defendant No. 1 in support of the executor-protection/probate-related argument.	Court considered the reliance; nevertheless, on the basis of Section 213 and binding Supreme Court authority, it held that rights claimed as executor cannot be treated as exclusive without probate.
Rajeshwar Nath Gupta v. Administrator General, 35 (1988) DLT 88	Relied on for principles governing appointment of a Receiver, including that a Receiver should not be appointed unless plaintiff shows a prima facie very good chance of success.	The Court followed the principles set out in this authority when weighing whether to appoint a Receiver, noting that plaintiffs did not demonstrate a prima facie very excellent chance but other principles were also relevant.
Prem Sagar Kumra v. Panna Lal, 1976 Rajdhani LR (note) 122	Cited to support the contention that appointment of a Receiver is not justified where the property is in occupation of a lessee and there is no dissipation.	The Court noted the contention but examined the total factual matrix (absence of probate, alleged deficiencies in accounting, defendant No.1's absence, opposition by other beneficiaries) before reaching a different remedy (joint receivers).
Chandrashekhar Sidramappa Chinchansure v. Bhaurao Sidarmappa Chinchansure, AIR 1983 Bombay 475	Cited in support of the argument that a Receiver is not necessary where an immovable property is yielding rent and not being dissipated.	The Court took this into account among other authorities but, given other facts and concerns, proceeded to appoint joint receivers.
T. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. C. Thangavelu Chetty, AIR 1955 Madras 430	Set out five guiding principles for appointment of receivers (as referenced by the Court), including: the prima facie-success requirement and the 'in medio' principle where the property is in nobody's exclusive enjoyment.	The Court specifically relied on these principles (as adopted by a Single Judge of this Court) — noting both that plaintiffs lacked a prima facie very excellent chance and that the 'in medio' principle supported court intervention to preserve the property.
S.C. Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal, (1970) 3 SCC 181	Cited by the plaintiffs for the proposition that a decree obtained by fraud can be challenged and is voidable/nullity.	The Court acknowledged this principle as relied upon by the plaintiffs but observed that whether the earlier decree was obtained by fraud remained to be proved in the suit; it did not decide that issue in the application.
Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass, 1969 (2) SCR 432	Cited by the plaintiffs for the principle that a decree obtained by fraud can be impeached.	The Court noted the reliance; the fraud allegation remained an issue for the suit and was not finally determined in the present interlocutory application.
Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah v. Mrs. Marlean Wilkinson v. Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose, AIR 1962 SC 1471	Supreme Court authority relied on for the principle (in conjunction with Section 213 Succession Act) that no right as executor can be established in court until probate or letters of administration have been obtained.	The Court applied this Supreme Court authority to hold that, since probate had not been obtained, defendant No. 1's claimed executor status did not entitle him to sole and exclusive right to preserve the suit property.
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) v. Jasjit Singh, 1993 (27) DRJ 103	Cited in support of the submission that unprobated Wills cannot be used to establish rights of executors/legatees (i.e., support for Section 213 principle).	The Court treated this as corroborative local authority for the position that, in absence of probate, executor rights are not enforceable as exclusive rights in court.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded through a fact-sensitive balancing of principles and documentary material. The step-by-step reasoning as reflected in the opinion is summarized below:

The Court first observed that probate in respect of the alleged Will of late Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari had not been obtained by the defendants. Relying on Section 213 of the Succession Act and the Supreme Court authority in Hem Nolini Judah, the Court held that no right as an executor can be established in any court unless probate or letters of administration have been obtained. Consequently, defendant No. 1's claim to an exclusive right to preserve the property could not be accepted solely on the basis of the alleged Will.
The Court then considered established principles governing appointment of receivers (drawing on T. Krishnaswamy Chetty and Rajeshwar Nath Gupta). It acknowledged the key principle that a Receiver should not be appointed except on proof that the plaintiff has a prima facie very excellent chance of succeeding; the Court found that plaintiffs could not be said, at this stage, to have such a prima facie case (noting the earlier decree in Suit No. 68/59 in favour of Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari and the allegation that plaintiffs had given no objection in that suit).
The Court recalled the complementary principle that where property is "in medio" (in the enjoyment of no one), taking possession by the Court to preserve the asset can be justified because it prevents a scramble and harms no one. The Court applied this principle to the present facts after weighing the competing considerations.
The factual matrix was examined: the lessee (Dr. Jurgen Axer) remained in possession and had purportedly exercised an option to renew the lease; defendant No. 1 had substantial periods abroad (evidenced in affidavit); defendant No. 5's affidavit annexed an income/expenditure statement showing certain payments to the Income Tax Department but failed to produce receipts for those payments; defendant No. 1 did not produce documents showing he had sought those receipts; and defendants 2–4 (also beneficiaries under the alleged Will) opposed leaving the property solely under defendant No. 1’s preservation.
Taking these factors together — absence of probate, doubts or insufficiencies in accounts and receipts, the executor's absence, and disagreement among beneficiaries — the Court concluded that the interest of justice required active preservation and neutral administration of the property.
On that basis, the Court appointed joint Receivers (plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1), imposed detailed administrative directions (open a joint account in a nationalised bank, deposit rents, maintain accounts, pay taxes and repair expenses from that account, operate account jointly), and disposed of the application with parties to bear their own costs.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The application for appointment of a Receiver was allowed in part: the Court appointed Smt. Usha Subramaniam (plaintiff No. 1) and Cdr. Daljit Kumar Bhandari (defendant No. 1) as joint Receivers of the suit property.

Direct consequences and practical implications (as ordered in the opinion):

The appointed joint Receivers must open a new joint account in a nationalised bank and deposit all rent recovered from the lessee into that account.
The Receivers are to maintain regular accounts of income derived from the suit property and payments to the Income Tax Department and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and of expenditure for repairs and other legitimate costs.
The joint bank account will be operated jointly by the two Receivers.
The application was disposed of and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

Broader precedent: The opinion applies and follows existing authority (including Supreme Court and High Court decisions) but does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond applying established principles to the facts of this case.

NMPetition allowed.

Show all summary ...

Mr. Sat Pal, J.— This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under order 40 rule 1 read with order 39 rules 1 & 2 and section 151 of the code of civil procedure for appointment of a Receiver with regard to the property bearing House No. 224, Jor Bagh, New Delhi.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the property bearing house No. 224, Jor Bagh, New Delhi (in short the suit property) was owned by Shri G.L Bhandari who died on 18th December, 1958. Shri G.L Bhandari left behind his wife Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari, mother Smt. Kulwanti, two daughters (who are plaintiffs 1 & 2 in this suit), three sons, namely, Shri Daljit Kumar Bhandari (defendant No. 1 herein), Shri Ranjit Kumar Bhandari (defendant No. 2 herein) and Shri Dalip Kumar Bhandari. Smt. Kulwanti died on 18.12.65 and Shri Dalip Kumar Bhandari died on 29.4.1978 Defendant No. 3, namely, Shri Shailendra Bhandari is the son and defendant No. 4, namely, Smt. Gayatri Lamba is the daughter of late Shri Dalip Kumar Bhandari.

3. The case of the defendants is that after the death of Shri G.L Bhandari, Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari filed a suit No. 68/59 seeking declaration that she was the owner of the suit property. It is alleged by the defendant No. 1 that the plaintiffs were also impleaded as defendants in the said suit and after no objection was filed by the plaintiffs, the defendants 1 & 2 and late Shri Dalip Kumar Bhandari who is the father of the defendants 3 and 4, the suit was decreed in favour of Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari. Pursuant to the said decree, the suit property was mutated by the Land and Development Officer, New Delhi in favour of Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari.

4. In terms of alleged lease agreement dated 15th December, 1988, the suit property was let out by Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari through her attorney Shri Sarvjit Bhandari (defendant No. 5) to Dr. Hans Jurgen Axer initially for a period of three years and renewable for a further period of two years. It was further stated in the lease deed that the rent would be increased by 12% for the 4th and 5th Calander year respectively. It was also mentioned in the lease deed that the lessee had an option to renew the lease after a period of 5 years subject to an increase of rent of at least 15% of last paid rent in all for an additional period of two years. Though the period of 5 years lapsed on 31st December, 1993, the suit property is still with the lessee, namely, Dr. Hans Jurgen Axer and in terms of the lease deed, he can continue as a lessee upto 31st December, 1995.

5. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No. 1 submitted that Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari was the absolute owner of the suit property and she had executed a Will on 7th August, 1974 and in terms of the Will defendants 1 to 4 were the benefeciaries with regard to the suit property and plaintiffs had no right, title and interest in the succession of the estate of Late Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari. He further submitted that in terms of the said Will defendant No. 1 had been named the executor and he had already applied for the grant of the probate in the case bearing Probate Petition No. 55/1991. He, therefore, contended that the present application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs who had no right in the suit property was not maintainable.

6. Learned Counsel for defendant No. 1 further submitted that the desire of the testator must be honoured and unless there was an application for removal of the executor in the Probate proceedings, he could not be removed. He, therefore, contended that the defendant No. 1 was the executor and since no application had been filed for his removal in the probate proceedings, he could not be removed. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Bali Ram Dote v. Bhupendra Nath Banerjee, AIR 1978 Calcutta 559 and a judgement of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sri Raja Kakarlapudi Venkata Sudarsana Sundara Narasayyamma Guru (died) v. Andhra Bank Ltd., Vijayawada, AIR 1960 AP 273.

7. Learned Counsel further submitted that a Receiver should be appointed only if the plaintiff had a prima facie good case. He submitted that since in the present case, the plaintiffs had not a prima facie very good chance of succeeding in the suit, a Receiver should not be appointed with regard to the suit property. He further submitted that in any case the suit property at present was in possession of the lessee and as such there was no justification to appoint a receiver. In support of this contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Rajeshwar Nath Gupta v. Administrator General, 35 (1988) Delhi Law Times 88 and Prem Sagar Kumra v. Panna Lal, 1976 Rajdhani Law Reporter (note) 122 and a judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Chandrashekhar Sidramappa Chinchansure v. Bhaurao Sidarmappa Chinchansure, AIR 1983 Bombay 475.

8. Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No. 5 reiterated the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the defendant No. 1. He also drew my attention to the orders dated 20th December, 1991 in terms of which the parties to the suit were restrained from alienating, transferring or encumbering or letting out the whole or any portion of the property in the suit without prior permission of the Court and the parties were also directed to maintain regular accounts of the income derived from the suit properties. He contended that in terms of the said order passed by this Court, the defendant No. 5 had been maintaining regular accounts of the income derived from the suit property and he had already filed an affidavit on 16th September, 1993 wherein the details of the income derived from the suit property and the amount of expenditure incurred thereon had been given. He further submitted that the defendant No. 5 had already handed over the balance amount to the defendant No. 1 who was the executor in terms of the Will executed by Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari. Learned Counsel also submitted that in case of immovable property which was regularly fetching rent, there was no wastage or discipation and the present case being of this nature, there was no need of appointment of a receiver. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of Madras High Court in the case of T. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. C. Thangavelu Chetty, AIR 1955 Madras 430 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (supra).

9. Ms. Mahajan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that late Shri G.L Bhandari had left the suit property without any Will and as such the plaintiffs being daughters of late Shri G.L Bhandari were entitled to their share in the suit property. She further submitted that the decree in S. No. 68/59 was obtained by fraud. She, therefore, contended that a decree obtained by fraud could be challenged at any stage as it was nullity. In support of this contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of S.C Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal, (1970) 3 SCC 181 : 1970 RCR 375 Bahadur Singh v. Muni Subrat Dass, 1969 (2) SCR 432.

10. Learned Counsel also submitted that the defendants could not be permitted to use an unprobated Will. In this connection, she drew my attention to Section 213 of the Succession Act and submitted that the aforesaid Section created a bar to the establishment of any right under Will by an executor or a legatee unless probate or letters of administration of the Will had been obtained. She submitted that since the probate of the alleged Will of Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari had not been obtained by the defendants so far, the defendants could not claim any right under the said Will. In support of this contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (since deceased) and after her LR Mrs. Marlean Wilkinson v. Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose, AIR 1962 SC 1471 and a judgement of this Court in the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) v. Jasjit Singh, 1993 (27) DRJ 103.

11. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs also submitted that the defendant No. 1 who claimed himself to be the executor of the alleged Will of Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari, lived abroad for most of the period and as such he was not in a position to manage the suit property. She also drew my attention to the affidavits of defendant No. 5 filed on 27th July, 1993 and 16th September, 1993 and submitted that these affidavits clearly showed that the said defendant had failed to submit proper explanation of the amount alleged to have been incurred with regard to the suit property against the rent received by him. She further submitted that defendant No. 5 had failed to even produce the copies of the receipts for the amount allegedly deposited by him with the Income Tax Department on account of income tax and Wealth Tax payable in respect of the suit property. She further submitted that the defendant No. 1 had not even filed any document to show that he had taken any step to ensure as to whether the said amount of Income-tax and Wealth-tax was actually deposited by the defendant No. 5 with the Income Tax Deptt. She, therefore, contended that in the present case it was in the interest of justice that a receiver be appointed to preserve the suit property.

12. Mr. Danial Latifi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants 2, 3 and 4 submitted that the suit property was a valuable property and could fetch substantial amount in case it was placed under the charge of a Receiver. He also submitted that the share of the defendants 2, 3 and 4 together was much more than the share of defendant No. 1 and as such the suit property could not be allowed to remain under the charge of the defendant No. 1 particularly when defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 were not satisfied with the manner in which the said property was being preserved by the defendant No. 1. It may be pointed out here that defendant No. 2 has also filed an affidavit on 3rd January, 1994 and in this affidavit it has been stated that defendant No. 1 was admittedly a NRI and was hardly present in Delhi as was evident from his various affidavits. It has further been stated in this affidavit that in these circumstances a receiver must be appointed to remove the tenants and to take possession of the suit property which had to be sold.

13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Admittedly the probate has not been obtained by the defendants so far with regard to the Will of late Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari. In view of Section 213 of the Succession Act and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hem Nolini Judah (supra) no right as an executor can be established in any Court unless probate or letter of administration have been obtained of the Will under which the right is claimed. The right of defendant No. 1 who is the executor in respect of the Will of late Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari, therefore, cannot be accepted as exclusive right to preserve the suit property.

14. The Madras High Court in the case of T. Krishnaswamy Chetty (supra) laid down five principles which have to be kept in mind while appointing receivers. The aforesaid principles were followed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Rajeshwar Nath Gupta (supra). One of these principles is that the Court should not appoint a Receiver except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie he has very excellant chance of succeeding in the suit. It is true that in the present case it cannot be said at this stage that the plaintiffs had prima facie very excellent chance of succeeding in the suit as the plaintiffs had allegedly given no objection in suit No. 68/59 and thereafter the said suit was decreed in favour of Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari and it was declared that Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari was the owner of the suit property. Whether the said decree was obtained by Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari by fraud is yet to be proved in this case.

15. However, another principle to be kept in mind while appointing the receiver is that where the property is shown to be ‘in medio’, that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one, as the Court can hardly do wrong in taking possession, it will then be the common interest of all the parties that the Court should prevent a scramble as no one seeks to be in actual lawful enjoyment of the property and no harm can be done to anyone by taking it and preserving it for the benefit of the legitimate who may prove successful. Admittedly in the present case the property is in possession of the lessee, namely, Dr. Jurgen Axer who by his letter dated 30th November, 1993 had already exercised his option to renew and extend the lease agreement with an increase of rent and hire charges of 15% for a period of two years w.e.f 1.1.94 From the affidavit of the defendant No. 1 filed on 15.9.93, it is also clear that the defendant No. 1 was aborad for a period of 7 months and 15 days in 1993 and again he was not in India from 1st January, 1994 to 29th January, 1994. Further the defendant No. 5 alongwith his affidavit filed on 16th September, 1993 has annexed a statement of income and expenditure of the Estate of late Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari upto 29th March, 1993 and in this statement certain payments are shown to have been made to Income Tax Deptt., but the learned Counsel for defendant No. 5 has failed to produce the receipts regarding those payments. Even defendant No. 1 has also not brought on record any document to show that he had approached the defendant No. 5 for production of those receipts. Besides, the defendants 2, 3 and 4 who are beneficiaries in terms of the alleged Will executed by late Smt. Shakuntala Bhandari are also opposed for the preservation of the suit property by defendant No. 1 alone.

16. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that it will be in the interest of justice that one of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 are appointed joint Receivers of the suit property. Accordingly, I appoint Smt. Usha Subramaniam (plaintiff No. 1) and Cdr. Daljit Kumar Bhandari (defendant No. 1) as joint Receivers of the suit property. The receivers are directed to open a new joint Account in a Nationalised Bank and deposit the amount of rent to be recovered from the lessee in that Account. They are also directed to maintain regular accounts of the income derived from the suit property and the amount which will be paid to the Income Tax Deptt. and Municipal Corporation of Delhi as taxes against the suit property and any other amount to be incurred for repairs of the said property. The Bank Account will be operated jointly by the said two receivers. With this order application stands disposed of. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.