T L KRISHNA UPADHYAYA Vs. GOWRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by defendants 19, 21 to 26 against the order pasted by the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, appointing Dr. M. L. Mariswamy as a receiver regarding the 1st item of, the property in dispute. The only question before this Court is as to whether the appointment of Dr. Mariswamy should be accepted or as to whether defendant No.19 should be appointed or the Court below should be directed to make a fresh selection or an appropriate person for being appointed as receiver.

(2.) Absolute impartiality and thorough disinterestedness being the essential qualifications for a receiver, a party to a litigation should not be appointed a receiver except under very special circumstances or with the consent of all parties. In England it is stated that a party to an action cannot propose himself as a receiver without the leave of the Court. It has been staqed that "it is the settled rule that one of tne parties to a cause shall not be appointed receiver without the consent of the other party unless a very special case is made". This principle of law has been followed by all the Indian Courts i'hus it is well settled that if a case for appointment is made out, the Court will not appoint a party to tne action as the receiver unless by consent or there are special circumstances justifying. such appointment. We have, therefore, to see in the present case whether all tne parties consent to the appointment of defendant 19 as receiver and secondly whether there are special circumstances warranting his appointment.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the appellant supported by the respondent Nos. 6 to 7 contended that defendant No.19 may be appointed as receiver. The sole ground for rejecting tne claim was tnat he was staying away from Mysore. As against this, the other contesting respondents submitted that respondent No.19 is not a fit and proper person and is not disinterested. Further, as has been stated by him in tne written statement, his interest in item No.1 has been sold away in execution of the decree against him and now he has no interest in the property. In view of what is contained in the written statement, it was submitted that defendant No.19 has virtually no interest in the properties and, therefore, he ought not to be chosen lor being appointed as receiver.