VARKEY Vs. TRAVANCORE FORWARD BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this. Civil, Revision Petition is whether a receiver should be appointed pending suit. Both the lower courts directed that a receiver should be appointed, if the defendant failed to make certain deposits towards mesne profits. But they gave different reasons for reaching this conclusion. In revision the defendant petitioner before me disputes the correctness of the order appointing Receiver.

(2.) The suit is for recovery of possession on the basis of a caretaker arrangement alleged to have taken place more than 12 years prior to the date of suit. The defendant contends, inter alia, that he had been in possession for more than 12 years as owner and thereby had perfected title by adverse possession. The Trial Court directed the appointment of a receiver in default of the defendant making certain deposits. The reason for making that direction by the Trial Court appears to be that the defendant does not possess any means and if the suit is ultimately decreed it will not be possible to realise the mesne profits from him. In appeal the learned District Judge confirmed that order on the ground that the case was a clear case of disputed title and therefore the appointment of a receiver by the Trial Court was justified.

(3.) I do not think that the reason given by either of the lower courts is sufficient for the appointment of a receiver. It is now well settled that the appointment of a receiver should not be allowed as a matter of course. O.40 R.1 lays down that where it appears, to the, court to be just and convenient, the court may appoint a receiver. Mulla in his commentaries on the Code of Civil Procedure, 12th Edn. p. 1168 observes:-