- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kasturi Bai And Others v. Anguri Chaudhary .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent (plaintiff) instituted Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1993 before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Shahdol, seeking a decree for partition and separate possession of immovable properties that are presently let out to various tenants. The plaintiff contended that the properties were the exclusive estate of her late father, Kishore Chand, and that the appellants (defendants)—her mother (Appellant 1) and two sons of Kishore Chand’s nephew (Appellants 2 and 3)—had no lawful share, yet continued to collect rents, induct tenants, and effect new constructions.
Pending suit, the plaintiff applied under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for appointment of a Receiver, and also sought an interim injunction against alienation or alteration of the property. The trial court dismissed the Receiver application. On appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(s) CPC, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 20-6-2000 reversed the trial court, directed appointment of an independent Receiver, and issued detailed supervisory directions. The present appeal was filed by the defendants challenging that High Court order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in appointing an independent Receiver for the suit properties under Order XL Rule 1 CPC after the trial court had refused such relief.
- Whether the remuneration fixed for the Receiver by the High Court (₹10,000 per month) was appropriate in view of the actual rental income generated by the property.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The High Court acted on an incorrect and exaggerated representation that the property yielded ₹20,000 per month in rent; the Receiver’s own statement showed only ₹6,800 collected in July.
- They had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property for over 50 years without causing loss or damage, and had voluntarily undertaken not to alienate the property during litigation, hence no necessity for a Receiver existed.
- The monthly remuneration of ₹10,000 fixed for the Receiver was unreasonable and disproportionate to the income.
Respondent's Arguments
- The figure of ₹25,000 (not ₹20,000) was admittedly exaggerated; however, independent management was still required because Appellant 1 is aged and Appellants 2 and 3 have been appropriating rents without accounting.
- The Receiver had voluntarily limited his remuneration to ₹1,000 per month after assuming charge, mitigating the financial concern raised by the appellants.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the pivotal duties of the Receiver would be to collect rents, maintain accurate accounts, and preserve the property during the pendency of the suit. Because:
- Appellant 1 (widow of Kishore Chand) was very elderly and unable to manage these tasks herself; and
- Appellants 2 and 3 were the very individuals against whom allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation were made,
the Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment that entrusting a neutral third party was warranted. The Court found no justification to interfere with the High Court’s decision to appoint a Receiver but accepted that the remuneration originally fixed was excessive in light of actual collections. Accordingly, it reduced the Receiver’s monthly fee to ₹1,000.
The Court also noted that the trial had already commenced, with witnesses under examination, and directed the trial court to continue hearing the matter from day to day and dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Holding and Implications
Appeal disposed of with modification. The appointment of a Receiver stands affirmed, but his remuneration is reduced from ₹10,000 to ₹1,000 per month. The trial court is instructed to proceed with day-to-day hearings and conclude the suit swiftly.
Implications: The order secures neutral management of rental income during litigation while addressing concerns over excessive Receiver fees. It imposes no new legal precedent but underscores the Court’s willingness to tailor Receiver remuneration to actual income and to expedite partition suits where interim management is essential.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The defendant in Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1993 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Shahdol, has filed this appeal assailing the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 20-6-2000 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1191 of 1998. In the said order the High Court ordered appointment of a Receiver to be in charge of the suit properties with other consequential directions. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
“As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 14-8-1998 is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to require both the parties to suggest an agreed name of a person within fifteen days from the receipt of the record and a copy of this order, for his appointment as a Receiver in the case. In case, they fail to do so, within the time fixed by the trial court, the trial court shall be free to appoint a person of integrity as the Receiver of the suit property, who is well-conversant with the legal procedures and is capable of maintaining true and honest accounts of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. The said appointment of the Receiver shall be made initially for a period of two years and it shall be extended by the trial court on an application being filed by the Receiver or the appellant, in case by that time the civil suit remains pending before it. The trial court is further directed that it shall, after the appointment of the Receiver, try to dispose of the civil suit within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The trial court shall, from time to time, call for the accounts from the Receiver so appointed and supervise his work and in case, the work or accounts of the Receiver is found unsatisfactory by the trial court, it shall be free to appoint a new Receiver.”
3. The respondent herein filed the aforementioned suit impleading the appellants herein as defendants. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of partition and separate possession of the suit properties. The suit properties are structures in occupation of tenants.
4. The case of the plaintiff, shortly stated, was that the suit properties were the exclusive properties of the late Kishore Chand her father and husband of Appellant 1. Appellants 2 and 3 are the sons of Virender Kumar, a nephew of Kishore Chand. According to the plaintiff neither Virender Kumar nor his sons (Appellants 2 and 3 herein) have any right, title and interest in the suit properties. Taking advantage of the old age of her mother they have kept her under their clutches and have been enjoying the suit properties. The plaintiff further alleged that Defendants 2 and 3 have been collecting and appropriating the rent paid by the tenants without giving her any share therein. They are also inducting new tenants and collecting premium money from them. The plaintiff also alleged that Defendants 2 and 3 are making new constructions spending the money collected from the tenants as rent. On these allegations the plaintiff filed the application under Order XL Rule 1 CPC for appointment of a Receiver. She had also filed an application seeking interim injunction against the defendants not to change the status quo of the suit property and not to alienate the same.
5. The defendants refuted the allegations made in the petition for appointment of Receiver mainly on the ground that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties since long, for more than 50 years. It was their contention that they have not caused any loss or damage to the suit properties and therefore, no case for appointment of Receiver is made out. They agreed not to alienate any part of the suit property during pendency of the suit.
6. The trial court rejected the prayer for appointment of Receiver and dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. On appeal being filed under Order 43 Rule 1(s) CPC the High Court by the order passed on 20-6-2000 ordered the appointment of a Receiver and directed the trial court to appoint a proper person. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.
7. In course of hearing of this appeal learned counsel for the parties stated that hearing of the suit has commenced and some witnesses have been examined. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the suit is likely to be disposed of within two to three months.
8. On the facts and circumstances of the case the main duty to be discharged by the Receiver is to collect rent from the tenants occupying different portions of the suit property; to maintain accounts of all the collections and place the same before the Court. The question whether the suit property is the exclusive property of the late Kishore Chand; whether Defendants 2 and 3 are entitled to have any share in the suit property will be decided in the suit. The fact remains that Appellant 1 who is the widow of Kishore Chand and mother of the plaintiff is a very old lady who cannot take upon herself the task of collecting rent from the tenants regularly; of maintaining accounts of the collections and to ensure proper maintenance of the structure etc. Defendants 2 and 3, keeping in view the allegations made by the plaintiff against them, cannot be entrusted with the work. In such circumstances the High Court rightly ordered appointment of a third party as Receiver.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the High Court was impressed with the statement of fact that the suit property fetches Rs 20,000 per month as rent which is incorrect and misleading. Referring to the statement submitted by the Receiver on 14-8-2000 the learned counsel pointed out that only a sum of Rs 6800 was the collection during the month of July.
10. In such circumstances the High Court erred in ordering appointment of a Receiver on a monthly remuneration of Rs 10,000. In reply to the said contention, learned counsel for the respondent fairly stated that Rs 25,000 per month is an exaggerated figure. He submitted that the Receiver has voluntarily fixed a sum of Rs 1000 per month as his remuneration and has been drawing such amount after taking charge of the suit properties.
11. On consideration of the matter we are of the view that the order of appointment of a Receiver does not call for interference. The order under challenge is modified only to the extent that the Receiver shall receive a sum of Rs 1000 per month instead of Rs 10,000 as his remuneration. Since hearing of the suit has already commenced the trial court shall dispose of the same expeditiously hearing it from day to day. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. No cost.
Alert