SAMANTH Vs. INDIRA SADANANDA HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the appellant, who is arrayed as Defendant No. 4 in O.S. No. 1050/2013 on the file of the 20th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 2/4/2016 passed by the Trial Court allowing I.A. No. 5 filed under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whereby a Receiver was appointed to collect rent in respect of the suit schedule property.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that, the original suit, O.S. No. 1050/2013, was instituted by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before the Trial Court seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property to the extent of 1/7th share. During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No. 1, who is stated to be an illiterate woman incapable of reading and writing, filed an interlocutory application under Order XL Rule 1 CPC seeking appointment of a Receiver. The principal allegations made in the application were that, Defendant No. 4, the present appellant, was residing with Defendant No. 1 and was entrusted with the management of the suit property. It was further alleged that, Defendant No. 4 had taken advantage of the illiteracy and vulnerability of Defendant No. 1, had obtained her signature on blank papers under false pretenses, and had misused those papers for her personal and unlawful gain. It was also alleged that, the appellant was collecting rents and other income to the tune of Rs.40,000.00 per month from the suit property, while concealing the same from the co-owners and denying them their legitimate share.

(3.) The said application was opposed by the appellant by filing a detailed statement of objections denying all the allegations made therein. It was categorically stated that, she had not received Rs.40,000.00 as alleged, nor had she committed any act of misrepresentation or misappropriation. The appellant contended that, the application was filed only to harass her and prevent her from enjoying her lawful share in the undivided property. It was submitted that, no prima facie case or urgency existed to warrant the appointment of a Receiver, and that such a drastic order was not only unjustified but also legally unsustainable.