- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sree Venkataramana Temple Board Of Education And Others v. C. Manjunatha Kamath And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners challenged the appointment of a receiver to manage educational institutions formerly managed by them. They filed Original Suit No. 168/71 seeking a declaration that they were valid members of the Shree Venkataramana Temple Board of Education and entitled to manage three temple schools, along with a permanent injunction restraining interference with their management. Although they obtained a temporary injunction, the defendants applied under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a receiver, alleging improper management. The trial court appointed a local Bar member as receiver; the Civil Judge affirmed that order, leading to this revision petition. [1][2]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a receiver could be appointed to manage the disputed institutions despite an injunction operating in favour of the petitioners. [3][4]
- Whether the defendants’ failure to specify acts of mismanagement or waste made the appointment of the receiver without jurisdiction. [3][5]
- Whether the revisional court should interfere with the appellate finding that the institutions were being mismanaged. [6]
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- It was improper to appoint a receiver for properties covered by an injunction in their favour. [3]
- The defendants had not proved any mismanagement of the educational institutions, and therefore the appointment was without jurisdiction. [3]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court held that Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers wide power to appoint a receiver where it is just and convenient. The power may be exercised at any time, on the application of a party or an interested non-party, and even suo motu. Accordingly, there is no inflexible rule preventing appointment of a receiver merely because an injunction operates in favour of one party. [4]
The court acknowledged that the defendants had not specified the alleged acts of mismanagement or waste and that the trial court had not expressly identified them. However, the appellate court had, in its detailed judgment, found that the plaintiffs were mismanaging the institutions and had affirmed the receiver’s appointment on that basis. [5]
The revisional court declined to disturb that finding because the appellate order was not affected by an error of jurisdiction. It also considered that the receiver had already assumed management after the stay was vacated, and that removing him would cause an undesirable change in management potentially harmful to the educational institutions. [6]
In view of the connected suits filed by the parties, the court directed that Original Suit Nos. 111/71 and 168/71 be disposed of expeditiously. [7]
Holding and Implications
REVISION PETITION DISMISSED, without costs. The appointment of the receiver was maintained, and the court directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously with the connected suits. [8][7]
The direct consequence was that the receiver continued managing the educational institutions. The opinion set out the court’s approach to receiver appointments under Order XL Rule 1, but no new precedent was cited or established in the opinion. [4][6]
Jagannatha Shetty, J.:— The petitioners are aggrieved by the order appointing a receiver to manage certain educational institutions which were formerly managed by them.
2. They filed Original Suit No. 168/71 for declaration that they are the duly and validly constituted members of Shree Venkataramana Temple Board of Education and entitled to manage and conduct three schools pertaining to the temple. The suit was also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in their management. The plaintiffs obtained a temporary injunction. The appeal against the said injunction order is pending disposal before the Court of the Civil Judge at Udipi. When the injunction order was thus operative against the defendants, the defendants filed an application under Order XL Rule 1, C.P.C for appointment of a receiver complaining that the said schools are not properly managed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court, after enquiry appointed one of the members of the local Bar as a receiver. The plaintiffs appealed. The learned Civil Judge while affirming the order of appointment of the receiver, has dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.
3. Sri U.L Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners urged two points, viz., (1) that it was not proper for the trail Court to appoint a receiver to manage the properties in respect of which, there is already an order of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, and (2) that the defendants did not prove any mis-management of the educational institutions by the plaintiffs, and therefore, the appointment of the receiver was without jurisdiction.
4. On the first contention, I do not think that there is any impropriety or illegality committed by the Court. If circumstances of any ease, justify the appointment of a receiver, the Courts do well in exercising discretion by appointing a receiver and preserving the property in dispute. Order XL Rule 1, C.P.C gives a wide power to the Court to appoint a receiver, if it is just and convenient. Such appointment could be made at any time not only on the application of a party to the suit but also of one who is not a party to the suit, but interested in the preservation of the property. It can do so even suo moto. There is no inflexible rule that the Court should not appoint a receiver to manage the suit properties in respect of which there is an injunction in favour of one of the parties to the suit.
5. Turning now to the second contention, it is true that the defendants did not specify, in their application, the acts of mis-management or waste committed by the plaintiffs. The trial Court also has not specifically stated the acts of mismanagement. But the Appellate Court in its elaborate judgment has held that the plaintiffs are mis-managing the educational institutions. On that ground it has affirmed the order of appointment of the receiver.
6. I do not think that I can disturb the said finding in my revisional jurisdiction, as the appellate order is not vitiated by any error of jurisdiction. There is one other reason why I should not interfere at this state. The receiver has already taken over the management of the institutions when this Court vacated the stay order after notice to the respondents. It is therefore not proper to dispossess the receiver from his management of the educational institutions. The Educational Institutions should not be made to suffer by the frequent change of management.
7. Having regard to the suit and the counter-suit which is filed by petitioners and respondents, it is proper that the trial Court should expeditiously dispose of those suit, i.e, O.S Nos. 111/71 and O.S No. 168/71 as early as possible.
8. With the above observation, this revision petition is dismissed, but no costs.
Alert